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
hazard, 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 hazard, 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 hazard, 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 hazard, 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.
Mic check. Mic check. Check one, check two. Mic check.
Mic check. Mic check.
Check. Check. Check.
Mic check.
Wake up. Wake up. Wake up.
Yeah, five by five here.
Who said that?
Mic check. Mic check.
Check.
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 6 inches by 12,
are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers-
Good morning, everyone. We should be starting shortly.
We had two members walk out, and we need them to come back in
so that we will have quorum. And in fact, we have two new members come
in. So we will get started shortly.
Okay, so...
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 twelve 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-
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Finance is called to order.
Can I have some quiet in the
chambers, please?
Good morning. The subject matter hearing on the
Committee on Finance agenda is hereby called to order.
This is a subject matter hearing to discuss an ordinance introduced by
Mayor Brandon Johnson authorizing the approval of the
ownership transfer pursuant to the Chicago Metered
Parking System Concession Agreement,
Ordinance
2026-0025407.
The proposed ordinance, introduced by Mayor Brandon
Johnson, was referred to the Committee on Finance during the
May 20th City Council meeting.
For purposes of the record, I am entering the mayor's
transmission letter, requesting our favorable consideration
for purposes of this ordinance and the ordinance itself
into the official record of the Committee on
Finance.
No votes will be taken today during the subject
matter hearing, and we'll begin by having a roll call to
establish quorum
Alderman Lapata,
Alderman Hopkins, Alderman Hall, Alderman Harris,
Alderman Beale, Alderman Lee,
Alderman Ramirez, Alderman Quinn, Alderman
Lopez,
Alderman Moore,
Alderman Curtis, Alderman O'Shea,
Alderman Taylor,
Alderman Mosley,
Alderman Rodriguez,
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez, Alderman Burnett,
Alderman Irvin, Alderman Taliaferro,
Alderman Cardona, Alderman Waguespack,
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez, Alderman Villegas,
Alderman Mitz, Alderman Sposato,
Alderman Vasquez, Alderman Riley,
Alderman Knutson.
Chair Dowell is here.
We have a quorum. We
have a quorum. We have 18.
Alderman Mitchell, Martin,
Scott, Silverstein, Casada, and Conway have
requested to participate remotely today for reasons
stated under Rule 59. Can I get a motion to allow these
aldermen to participate? So moved by Alderman Mosley.
All those in favor signify by saying "Aye." Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the motion carries.
I would like to confirm Alderman Martin.
Present.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Scott.
Present.
Alderman Silverstein.
Alderman Casada.
Present.
Alderman Conway.
Present.
All right. And
Alderman Irvin has joined us for purposes of quorum and will be
counted towards quorum.
The committee is holding this subject matter hearing today to provide
council members with an opportunity
to ask additional questions and
address your concerns so we may all better understand the city's
rights under the concession agreement and determine the best course
of action for the city council and Chicago taxpayers.
Jones Day, which is represented by
Mark Rotari, is the special legal counsel for the city
council on this matter, and he is available for
counsel should any alderman want to speak to him today.
He's in the Committee on Budget and Government Operations conference
room in the second floor.
Joining us today are representatives from Chicago Parking Meters
LLC and Stone Peak Partner LP.
The committee will begin the subject matter hearing with the opening statements
from Chicago Parking Meters LLC and Stone
Peak Partners LP.
Following their statements, we will open it up for
questions.
Committee members will be recognized first for questioning, followed by
non-members. The first round of questioning will be limited to
five minutes per alderman. The second round will be limited to
three minutes per alderman.
Before we begin the public comment period, I want to also
acknowledge President Pro Tem
Sam Nugent, who has joined us, Alderman Sam Nugent, who has joined
us for purposes of this meeting.
We'll now begin our public comment period, and our first
speaker is Edwin Eisendrath.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Alderman Edwin Eisendrath.
It sticks, doesn't it?
Hello, fellas. Hello, ladies.
Welcome back to this august chambers, Alderman.
It's a pleasure to be back. This is my first time back, and I left
almost 40 years ago. It takes
a big wrong, I'm afraid, to bring me back.
When I was an alderman here, I was so young I didn't need notes.
Forgive me in my age.
Look, I have been part of the democracy fight around the country
since Donald Trump was elected the first time.
That led me to end the businesses that I had.
After I left this chamber, I had an actual life.
And the first thing I did when I started this fight was to save the
"Sun-Times," to bring together public and
labor investors to save that paper, and we did,
and the "Reader" as well. But that fight has gone on.
I've been able to talk to journalists from around the country, to
government workers, to scholars, and one of those journalists told me
things that I'm going to rely on in this testimony here.
Look, the mayor seeks to permit the sale of this terrible, and we
all know it was a terrible parking deal, to
Stone Peak Partners. And I want to talk a little bit about Stone Peak
Partners.
And I'm relying on the reporting of Gillian Brockell, who's a fabulous reporter.
They own OmniAir,
or rather they own ATSG, which owns OmniAir, and there
are no other shareholders. So they own OmniAir.
The investors made a bet on the cruelty of Donald Trump.
A bet. They invested $3.1 billion in an
all-cash deal. You can read it in their own announcement,
which they announced the day before the 2024 election,
and the deal closed right after, to buy OmniAir.
OmniAir conducts ICE flights.
And they specialize in third country removals.
Third country removals, as you may remember, use that
loophole in our laws. Actually, it was something in our laws that
was written so that we could not send
migrants who were deported to their home countries, where they would be killed,
where the reason they came to us is because they would be killed.
They-
These third-party removals, third country removals, get around that by
sending you to an interim country that then
sends you back there.
And let's be clear, the people who are being deported aren't the worst of the
worst. They're grandmothers, they're brothers, they're sons.
They're people who work here in Chicago, pay taxes here in Chicago.
And Omni's flights are a hideous violation of air
safety, of
human rights, and probably of our own laws.
Boarding these flights, before boarding, each passenger's-
Alderman. Yes, Alderman Rocha.
No.
Three minutes is our rule.
Alderman Eisendrath.
Alderman Eisendrath, can we get copies of your
statement, which we will hand out to
all of the aldermen?
And I would like to tell you that Gillian Bracco, I think you mentioned
that name in your statement, has provided
written comments to the body as well.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Apostle Sandy
Norman.
And while she's coming to the mic,
want to acknowledge Alderman Mitts and Alderman Hopkins, and they'll be counted
towards quorum.
Apostle.
Good morning, everyone. Honor to you, Pat Dowell.
I want to be quick this morning, and I pray that as I'm
speaking, that everybody pays attention.
I want to say the last time I was here, number one, at City Hall,
Brian Hopkins, I tried to address you,
and as you being the person that is over public safety, you
put your hands in my face, and you disrespected
me, and you kept walking. I just want you to
know that what you did, you should not be in that
seat because you care nothing about the Black community.
You care nothing about... Only communities that-- Okay, you see how
he's getting up, walking out.
Alderman,
yeah, that's what he did. I want to say to this council, as a
pastor in the city of Chicago, I had the honor of burying
Lamont Butler this past weekend. He was one of the
victims of the mass shooting where you had two people killed on
51st and Woods, and five people shot.
There were no pastors or leaders over there.
And because what I do as a CVI organization and as a pastor,
I had to be the voice for that family, and I had to eulogize him.
Michelle Harris, 79th and Cottage Grove.
I'm the pastor when those gang wars are going on on 79th,
that stood out there on those corners in the midst of shootouts and
killings. But I didn't have the funding to actually buy that corner.
It was another pastor that did. But we were the ones that did the work.
Jason Irving, in your neighborhood, East
Garfield, you have one of the most highest crime rates.
I'm the pastor that's on Springfield and Madison, the pastor
that's in those neighborhoods providing resources, helping the people that are
in those communities, dealing with those mass shootings, walking on blocks,
dealing with gang fractions behind closed doors.
There's a lot of work that I've done in the city of Chicago.
Pat Dowell, you're my alderman. I'm the pastor that when they had the
shooting over there with those seniors being shot up and all the different
gang fractions and organizations behind closed doors, that's bringing about
peace. It's Apostle Sandy Norman that's doing the work.
So we have an ordinance passed today for gun violence.
Most of those pastors that you all have on the fifth floor with
the mayor, they are nowhere to be found in the
community while people are dying, while people are being
shot and killed. And here we are proposing $100
million where there's corruption.
They use trauma, again, in the Black community to
capitalize and to get funding. Why don't you ever see
any of these pastors on the street?
You don't see them in the community, but they're on the fifth floor, and
I'm the one that come here, that plead with you all as aldermen.
But these are the people that y'all talking about putting $100 million in their
hands.
Y'all go.
Thank you, Apostle Norman.
Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
Yes, sir.
I was trying to give you credit.
I was very excited. Pat Dowell is having a
finance committee meeting today, and no other
committees are meeting. I said, "I got to let her
know that she's doing the right thing." I did
not know that this wasn't a regular finance committee meeting,
but subject matter only. And I notice how you
treated this gentleman that was trying to speak.
Now he's down here
talking to Raymond Lopez. Uh-huh.
So, I guess he's privileged, and you were going to try to
even give him extended time.
So racism is here.
Racism is here, and
it's terrible here, Pat. But you
have a quorum, but subject matter only.
Everybody here
is familiar with this subject. It's time to say
no, to vote no. Now, we don't need to hear,
"Selling the streets off,"
and then reselling them again.
It's something wrong. I was so happy.
I said, "Pat Dowell is having a long finance meeting, and
there's no other committee meeting." And I said, "Ooh, I have to
thank her." I don't have nothing to thank you about.
I even told Tyrone, "Come down. She's having a
finance committee meeting, and no other meeting but today."
Because most of the time they have two and three meetings, and they get up
and do a rubber...
I told Ms. Mitchell about it when she
first came in. God, can somebody stop
this?
Somebody somewhere come here and stop this
doo-doo here. Please.
People, please.
When will it stop?
Flip red or flip blue. Go black,
you Black people. Go black.
I just was so elated what you were doing.
You didn't do nothing. This structural master mess
is not about nothing.
No vote will be taken.
I
said, "Oh, Pat got it together."
But Pat don't have it together, Mr.
Blakemore,
and none of them have it together. Not a one.
This
is a mess, structural matter only.
We should have never sold it, and then go
refinance and reset-
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Just for the
general public's knowledge,
all former aldermen are allowed to be on the city
council floor.
Our next speaker is Taiwan Sims.
Change that.
Nobody's privileged.
Good morning, committee. Good morning.
This is the fullest the chamber has been since,
what?
Maybe the last few months.
There was important issues other than just
fluff.
Mr. Blakemore is right, this is a fluff meeting today.
But what's happening on the fifth floor is important.
They're proposing $100 million for a permanent gun task
force. I don't understand.
We have a CPD. We have Superintendent Snellings.
So why do we need another $100 million
allotted to what?
What does this benefit us? The mayor says that he knows exactly where the
guns are coming from, the states they're coming from, and how they're being
trafficked.
So wouldn't you coordinate CPD and ATF
to stop that?
Instead of calling, or Father Phleger was in the news
screaming, "Shut up, Trump."
But Father Phleger doesn't have the unfortunate
pleasure of burying so many youth
in communities like in the Southland, in the West Side,
or in East Rogers Park.
He doesn't have the unpleasant pleasure of being shot multiple times
and having to deal with it, because there's no equal protections.
So that money, that $100 million could be
allotted to maybe a youth center, a recreation center, or youth job
training, instead of yet again, because there's $100 million
annually put into crime prevention, or this CVI program, that you
all call it.
So help us out, because Trump, once again, I'm going to say it, does not
manage this city.
He does not manage the city. He does not protect the city.
It is not in him. It is to protect the United States as the president.
But Mayor Brandon Johnson does, as he deflects continuously.
And when he talked about transportation, I'm going to bring it back up.
The youth, foundational Black Americans use transportation as shelter
because of the housing crisis.
When you talk about employment, foundational Black Americans, the youth, they
running in the streets. Why? Because they have none. There's no production.
Help us out.
But the $100 million that they upstairs talking about,
or "Shut up, Trump,"
they could utilize that for that measure.
That way, we're not making national headlines every week talking about teen
takeovers.
There is a think tank of individuals in this room right now.
None of you all have thought about that.
No provisions, no safeguards for children.
That's all y'all doing is corralling children.
No safeguards for that, huh? But a $100 million conversation upstairs,
where we have a whole force,
and today we're going to talk about,
what?
A parking meter deal that Daley shouldn't have made.
Thank you, Mr. Sims. I want to acknowledge Alderman O'Shea,
Alderman Beale, and Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez,
and they will be counting towards quorum.
Just to close off the conversation about public
comment, you've received written public comments earlier
today and this morning electronically from
Gillian Brockel and Dupree, Schwartz, and
Geoghegan Limited, and they've also been handed out to
you. This concludes our public comment period.
The committee will discuss today the proposed ordinance authorizing the
approval of the ownership transfer pursuant to the Chicago Metered
Parking System concession agreement.
As part of the committee's process, the committee reached out to all
council members to submit their questions regarding the proposed
ordinance. I want to thank everyone who joined me in submitting
questions. Various documents were received from Stone Peak
Partners LP and Chicago Parking Meters
LLC, and city departments, which were all
forwarded to all of the aldermen in advance of today's
hearing. A list of those documents have been provided to you,
and this list will also be entered into the public record of our
proceedings.
The redacted copy of the purchase agreement between Stone Peak
Partners LP and the current owners of the Chicago
Parking Meters LLC, received from Stone Peak on
Friday, June 12th, included a cover
legend which contained confidentiality
restrictions. We worked with the law department
and now have a June 15th confidentiality
release signed by Stone Peak and CPM for the
redacted purchase agreement.
The finance committee received a second copy,
a copy of a second extension agreement signed by the City and
Chicago Parking Meters LLC, in which CPM
has agreed to extend the June 30th timeline to
July 24th.
The committee will now discuss the ordinance authorizing the approval of the
ownership transfer pursuant to the
Chicago Metered Parking System concession
agreement. This is a subject matter hearing and no votes will be
taken today. We're joined by representatives from the
city departments, Chicago Parking Meters LLC,
and Stone Peak Partners LP, who are available for questions.
And I would ask the representatives of Stone Peak Partners and
Chicago Parking Meters LLC to come forward and sit at the
dais.
Our speakers today are Dennis Pedrelli,
CEO of AMI Group LLC, who will provide an
opening statement and available for questions.
James Wiper, Senior Managing Director, Head of
the US Private Equity and Head of Transportation and
Logistics for Stone Peak Partners LP.
He will also provide an opening statement and is available for questions.
Joseph Motto, counsel for Chicago Parking Meters
LLC.
Winston Taylor.
James Hurt, Principal for Stone Peak Partners LP.
Rob Kupchik, Senior Managing Director and Head of Stone Peak Core
Investing, and James McDonald, the Managing Deputy
Corporation Counsel from the Department of Law.
Ridatu Kasa,
also Deputy Corporation Counsel, is available, and Chip
Hastings, our Deputy Director from the Department of Finance is
available for questions.
We'll begin with
the opening statement from Dennis Pedrelli, or
whoever wants to go first. You all might have decided that.
Thank you, Chair Dowell.
Vice Chair Conway, I believe you're on the line as well, and to the entire
membership of the Committee on Finance and any other alderman present today.
Thank you for inviting me today to today's hearing.
I look forward to participating in today's hearing to discuss the proposed
ownership transfer.
As CEO of Chicago Parking Meters, I've had the privilege of managing and operating
the parking system for the City of Chicago since it commenced operations in
2009. During that time, CPM has overhauled and
modernized the city's parking meter system.
Twice, we installed state-of-the-art electronic pay stations in
replacement of coin-operated meters.
We also introduced the Park Chicago app, which enables motorists to pay for parking
using their smartphones. Features of Park Chicago have reduced the time it
takes to find open parking spots, with the expectation of
improved traffic flow in the city.
Today, Chicago's parking meter system is recognized as an international
leader. Before this committee is an ordinance to approve a
proposed transfer of 100% ownership in the metered parking system to Stone
Peak Partners. On March 12th, 2026, CPM sent a
letter to the city requesting the approval of the proposed transfer to Stone
Peak. During the course of this process, CPM has cooperated with the city
and this committee to provide information needed to evaluate and
approve the proposed transfer. The
proposed transfer satisfies the criteria outlined in Section
17.1 of the concession in order to approve the ordinance.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I will answer all questions from the committee to the best of my personal knowledge
and ability.
Thank
you very much for your comments.
Stone Peak?
Finance Chair Dowell, Vice Chair Conway on
the phone, and to the entire membership of this Committee on Finance
and all the other aldermen present today.
I thank you for inviting me and us to be here.
This introduction is long overdue,
and I'm very pleased to be back here in the City of Chicago to meet with you all to
address this committee
To answer your questions and introduce ourselves and specifically myself,
you have a right to understand this transaction, how it came to be, who Stone Peak
is,
and who I am.
In many ways, this process, this forum,
the questions, concerns,
legitimately serve only to encourage
and support my conviction in the bright future of the city.
This is what government should be doing. It's a critical asset for Chicago.
You have the right to interrogate us as owners and how we plan to operate it.
We are in deep agreement on the fact that the city
is critically important to its operations, to its residents, to your constituents.
If you show up to a park somewhere and you cannot get a space, it
stinks.
My only disappointment then is that we've not had the opportunity to engage in this
dialogue earlier.
I say this honestly, and please trust me that it has
not been for lack of effort.
So I'm excited to make up for lost time.
I'm James Wiper. I lead infrastructure investing at Stone Peak, as well
as transportation investing globally for the firm.
I've been at the firm since we set it up about 15 years ago.
I have watched it grow. It's been an incredible journey, and I'm incredibly
proud of it, frankly.
More relevant to this group,
I have been and will be the deal team lead,
an internal champion of the Chicago Parking Meters transaction,
both for the last several years and going forward.
I took this out of my remarks at my husband's suggestion, but one of the coolest
things about Chicago is that it invented private investment in
infrastructure. The innovation of the PPP system
that came was birthed in the country, in the
city. As a bit of a finance nerd, I find pretty cool.
To give some background on the firm, we're the largest privately owned
infrastructure investment manager globally.
Somewhere between $81 and $88 billion of assets under management in 11
offices worldwide.
Over that period, we've invested in nearly 100 portfolio companies, undertaken
untold more acquisitions,
through those platforms, contributed to significant job growth
and tens of billions of dollars constructing new and critical infrastructure across
all sectors, water, power, renewables, energy, digital infrastructure.
We've taken businesses public. We've been active managers and stewards of
capital for every manner of investor, from sovereign wealth funds, insurance
providers, corporate pensions, public, state, and municipal retirement
systems, including some of those found in your home state.
We've endeavored in all instances to provide a manner of care, commitment, and
respect owed those
whose dollars we are protecting and whose lives we are impacting.
For many of us, it's retirees in our own families.
Our interest in CPM isn't based solely on the asset.
It also reflects a larger belief in Chicago and its future.
I find every time I'm here, the narrative that you read in
the New York papers to be dramatically different than the experience I have on the
ground.
It's a leader in America, economically, culturally, politically.
You've exported some of my favorite food, and it's been our privilege to invest in
companies that operate in the city today.
This would be a long-term investment for us.
We have an open-ended investment vehicle.
This is a relatively newer development and evolution in infrastructure
investing that can and intends to hold the asset through the remaining life of this
concession.
And so in that vein or spirit,
we would hope to manage it with an eye to the long term.
We think this really creates direct alignment in a way that has not existed
before. We think this is a pretty positive change.
It's hard to find assets that benefit so greatly from
an open-ended
vehicle. And so we're keen to work hand in hand with you all, city officials,
Dennis, who's next to me,
and who would
stay on post transition,
to grow the asset with an eye to the long term.
We recognize there have been a lot of questions on the proposed transfer of this
asset.
We appreciate, communicative the committee on finance has been with us.
Chair Dowell, I was just saying I truly appreciate the
call last week.
We've engaged with y'all on several rounds of written questions.
I'm brutally tired, and so if I do not speak at my most eloquent,
it's because I wanted to make sure you all had those with time to read them,
and gave them the standard of care, and responsiveness that you
all deserve. I'm looking forward to walking through those today.
Finally, I'd like to say,
for all of us,
I'm available anytime.
I guess this is being broadcast live, but I'll give all of you my cell phone
who ask for it.
Just-
Put it on.
Send it. If you give it to me, I'll send it to him.
Thank you. And please consider that an
actual open invitation. I love meeting
people. It's the fun part of the job.
Smart people, interesting people, different perspectives, and you guys represent
them all.
So please, to the extent there are other questions we can answer that do not get
answered today, do not hesitate. I'll give you an answer you like.
I'll give you one you don't. I can promise you it will be honest.
Thanks. I appreciate your time.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wiper.
Would like to acknowledge Alderman Sancho Lopez and Alderman Hall as part
of the committee counting towards quorum, and Alderman Chico and
Alderman Cruz as non-members
who are with us today.
The rule is you have five minutes first round,
and we'll begin with Alderman Lospada.
Thank you so much. Thank you very much for being with us. Test, test. There we go.
Thank you very much for being with us today
I'm going to use my five minutes as effectively.
I know some of the topics other colleagues are going to ask on.
There are limited grounds for which, based off of the contract, that we should base
our vote on. Some of it is financial integrity, some of it is
reputational. I wanted to ask specifically about a company that I
believe is within your portfolio,
called Seapeak Maritime Glasgow Limited.
Does Stonepeak maintain a ownership or an ownership
stake in that company?
Yes, I'm its chairman.
So-
Sorry. Yeah.
So my understanding is that Seapeak has
facilitated
around the transport of four million tons of
Russian liquefied natural gas, a practice that, according to
Politico, has received sanctions and bans by the European
Union and the UK. I wonder if you can speak
to that practice and what Stonepeak is
doing to provide accountability around that practice.
I'm more than happy to speak to it.
I certainly had to speak to my husband about it when we received threats to our
home, so that was good.
Yes, we have done that.
We,
for the avoidance of doubt, do not participate in sanctioned activity.
When we acquired that business,
it was before the Ukraine and Russian conflict.
It's a business that is headquartered in
Vancouver, Canada. It operates roughly 55
LNG carriers around the world and a number of LPG vessels as well,
the majority of which serve to export
US-sourced liquefied natural gas to developing
economies around the world, or to offset transition from
coal-fired power to natural gas-fueled power.
Japan's been the largest importer after
the Fukushima event, and they needed to
repower their country and ensure grid stability.
Other developing nations, Latin Am, Africa, et cetera, have historically been the
largest importers. I would note that all of the gas,
90% of the gas, something like that, that you're talking about went immediately
back to Europe.
These
countries needed it, after
the pipeline was interrupted from Russia to Europe, to keep their lights
on. And so, while the activity that we undertook was not
sanctioned, while I would love to get out of those contracts, but we cannot
under international maritime law.
While the contracts that we have in place
are with a project body that includes the French
national energy company, Total,
it bothers me that the source
of those molecules is the Siberian Peninsula.
It was a less complicated trade. There was no sanctions in place at the time that
we acquired that business. We will continue to undertake it as we are required by
law, given there is no sanctions against our activities, for so long as we have
to.
It's complicated, right? Russia wants to
buy those assets.
I don't want to sell them to them.
You can't really sell them to anyone else, and we cannot cease the trade.
So we will continue doing what we are required to do for so long as we are.
We hope that the molecules that we are bringing to Europe help lower
the cost of electricity and ensure that the citizens of
Europe have heating power,
have heating fuel and power.
It's a complicated one.
The challenge is not the molecules.
The challenge is what the transport and the sale of those molecules
is funding.
But to be clear and to close-
So we don't own the molecules, just to be clear.
I know, but it is factual to say
that you maintain that Seapeak,
and I know that there's
reasons for this, but it is factual to say, number one, that
Stonepeak maintains ownership of Seapeak-
We do ownership and control
... and that Seapeak maintains its contractual
relationship regarding the transportation of Russian liquefied natural
gas?
The ownership of those molecules is not exclusively Russian,
but it is factual to say that we are abiding
our contractual duties under international
law to move molecules that were
liquefied in Russia
on the water.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Yeah. I'm going to extend it by two to five to
seven minutes because I think that he's
long-winded, and we probably have more than one question. So continue.
You've got two more minutes.
I will try to use my two more minutes effectively.
So I want to also speak to financial integrity-
For sure
... issues, because as we were doing some research, there's
numerous companies under Stonepeak's
portfolio. I'm looking at Rinchem, Trek,
Intermodal, Air Transport Services groups that it looks like
have either had credit downgrades or
have a credit watch of negative. Can you speak to
why some of your portfolio has seen those credit downgrades and how you
address that?
For sure. I think I maybe overly glibly
drafted last night that user experience may
vary. We've acquired 100 businesses.
We have levered them at a level that we considered and the
rating agencies considered appropriate out of the gate.
We had-
When you say leveraged them-
We put a debt on those businesses,
or assumed debt in most of the cases that was preexisting.
Businesses do well, they do poorly.
Then markets boom or they don't.
We endeavor to underwrite every business
to a level of financial and operational performance that we view as
overwhelmingly more likely than not to occur, but it
just doesn't always happen.
Full disclosure, I think there was an article in Bloomberg yesterday.
We had a minority non-controlled position in a small cell, so if
you go to a stadium, the way you get cell service in an overly dense location,
called ExteNet.
We've been invested in that business a long time.
We've sold out of it over time to a minority position that we have today
or used to have. Ultimately, the lenders will own that business.
If I may ask before I close, would you envision
Stone Peak leveraging against CPM LLC?
So there's existing debt at CPM. We
are adding an incremental $200 million of debt, or
we intend to at the time of close.
We undertook a ratings review process as is customary and also prudent
with Fitch, the nationally recognized ratings agency.
We sent around that report last night.
Recognize it was late, so do not expect you to have read it.
And I'm sure they would be happy to talk to you too.
They affirmed had no concerns with
the approach that we have taken. They had no concerns with Stone Peak's financial
wherewithal or reputation or credibility as an owner.
We think they are perhaps the most credible
type of institution to comment on that fact.
And I would also note the
debt that we are
looking to use to acquire the business, relatively de
minimis in the context of the overall transaction price, is at a level that is
significantly lower than at the time the existing
debt was put in place. Whatever it was, five, James you might know,
2019.
I guess that's seven years ago now.
Put in place at that time. It was 10.7 times forward
levered in 2019. We're at eight and a half.
So
when we say that we endeavor to undertake a prudent approach, it
will have and carry on a go-forward basis, less debt than it has
historically, and we think that is important.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Lospada.
Point of order, Alderman Beale.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I was just
wondering, just point of order, is that are we going to
be asking questions as it relates to the ordinance or are we going to be asking
questions that have nothing to do with the ordinance?
This is a subject matter hearing, and the ordinance lays
out
the request for transfer of the
asset, but there are elements of the concession agreement that
you might want to ask questions about.
And I think that's where Alderman Lospada was going.
He was speaking to a specific element of 17.1.
Just because there are specific grounds within the contract that
we are asked to base our vote yay or nay on, so
I was trying to ask questions that are specific to those grounds.
I understand. Thank you.
Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Excuse me, can we put seven minutes up on the clock?
Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Chairwoman. First I want to say thanks for Stone Peak for showing up
today, CPM, LAZ, and thank you for sharing your
positions
both in
testimony today, but also in the documentation.
I wanted to touch more on what's happening with the
actual ordinance. So,
I think
a lot of us have been under the impression
that
the administration wants to go ahead and
make sure that this ordinance moves forward.
So if we could ask Mr. McDonald first,
what is the position of Mayor Johnson on moving forward
with this asset transfer?
For the record, my name is Jim
McDonald. I'm Managing Deputy Corporation Counsel for
Transactions in the Law Department.
I think that question is appropriately phrased and submitted
to the mayor's office and not to the law department.
So you wouldn't be able to answer that.
How about
did the law department write the ordinance?
Yes, it did.
Yes, it did?
Yes. We did.
Okay.
Yes.
So in your conversations with the mayor, did he show intent to
make sure that this moved forward?
I have not had conversations with the mayor about this ordinance.
Okay. So in the
contract, it talks about who has authority
to
move forward with
such a contract signing.
And
let's see if I can find it here.
It can be essentially the
Department of Revenue, law department giving authority
to them, or
the mayor's office. So I'm having a hard
time understanding why the mayor is not coming forward and saying
what he thinks about this ordinance, despite the fact that it
has his fingerprints all over it, that you wrote it for him,
but he won't come out. And why won't he come out and say anything?
I will point out that Section 15 of the 2008
ordinance that authorized the original version of the concession agreement,
and it is attached to the current version as Exhibit A
Says that notwithstanding anything in the concession agreement,
any approval for a transfer, including a change in control,
must be approved by the city council.
So
over the last
four weeks, we had a conversation with the
administration on May 18th,
and in this conversation,
we were told that the administration cannot assist the city
council, will not assist the city council
outside of
what came to us through
basically a memorandum about summarizing the agreement and
then the ordinance itself.
So I guess I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what the
conflicts are that have been created that doesn't allow the
Department of Law to talk about this
agreement with the city council, yet
you're saying that we should vote on it.
I am happy to provide legal advice in a non-public forum
that allows me to give legal advice to you as my client, and that also
preserves privilege.
Okay.
I'm prohibited from doing that in this public forum that would not
preserve privilege.
Right. So part of what I had to do was ask for a FOIA
request to get the information about the mayor's bid, which started
probably over a year ago. So let me focus a little bit more on that,
because I think we're not going to get anywhere if the mayor's never going to come
out of hiding and say that he's for or against this
ordinance that he wrote.
But are there any claims for
potential or potential future defaults with CPM?
That is getting into legal advice, which I'd be happy to talk about with you
in a non-public forum.
Okay.
Can you tell us what the specific conflict is that
outside of,
"I have to speak to you outside of the public forum," what the specific conflict
is?
We have an NDS that says the city
can't talk to anyone about it. I've never heard of an NDS
in the public forum where an executive leader,
Mayor Johnson says, and directs the law department
not to talk to the city council,
not to share information with the city council, outside the basic purview
of "Here's what the contract says from 18 years
ago." What is the specific conflict that prevents the
law department from speaking openly about this
contract and about the potential new agreement?
The city executed a confidentiality letter agreement
last year, which is in effect until August 12th of
2027.
Sorry, let me interrupt.
I believe Dennis has waived that. That is
fully not in effect.
I'm sorry, Madam Director. I couldn't hear who's speaking.
That confidentiality agreement, for the record, has been waived, and it has been
waived for some period of time.
Can you say the date? Can you give us a date?
Someone's
heard June 12th.
I would love the legal advice that suggests that waiver
is inadequate.
There is ambiguity in the... If I may finish my
response to Alderman Waguespack, if you don't mind.
There's ambiguity in the clarifications that
CPM provided as to whether or not that fully
provides us the ability to talk to the city
council about the documents you're referring to.
We can sign it literally right now.
Blanket waiver, whatever you want it to say.
Understood.
We sign it.
Point of information, Chairman. Alderman
Lopez.
We did not receive comments on that document.
Alderman Lopez.
Excuse me, Jesse.
Alderman Lopez, point of information.
Thank you, Chairman. Just a question with regards to what Alderman
Waguespack referenced and this contention between this
waiver. If the city's unable, does that mean the other party's able to
provide us with the information that we're requesting that's being denied by the
city?
We have responded to literally every request for
information.
We have provided our purchase agreement, the price,
thousands of pages of information.
You may have seen, I don't know if you looked at the timestamps.
We have been working around the clock to try and get this group the
information it deserves. It is ridiculous that you've been asked
to make a decision on the basis of no information.
We have been trying and trying and trying, and I don't mean to sound frustrated, to
provide you with that information.
We signed a release weeks ago,
that shouldn't have been necessary anyway,
to ensure that that was possible. We did not receive comments, to be clear,
that suggested the city viewed that as inadequate.
We would have been happy to incorporate those comments.
It was drafted
by the most qualified attorneys in the world.
And just email me, I'll send you literally anything you want.
Done.
Thank you.
Alderman Waguespack, you have about 30
seconds.
Yes. And if I could come back later, if I need
to.
So Mr. McDonald, is the specific conflict here related to the
bid that the mayor
apparently put in in late last year to buy the parking meter
deal?
The ambiguity I was referring to was the request for the city's
bid documents. That's correct.
Okay. And,
I do not have visibility, but my job is to get market intel.
I'm happy to give my perspective on it, should anyone care to ask.
Have at it.
Yeah. We understood that the city's bid was several million dollars in excess of
ours. There was a specific tax issue that rendered that
slightly closer.
It was intended, based on our best information,
to be financed by a significant way more than ours,
in effect, the entire price instead of a small portion of that price,
addition of municipal bonds funded against the
city's cash flow stream and balance sheet to support that acquisition in a manner
which we frankly felt was imprudent, given what we know about the city's financial
condition and other reporting and rating agency
commentary on the capacity for that amount of additional leverage.
We were very surprised. We had been
assured for some period of time that the city was not
interested,
nor was it
candidly capable of raising the
quantity or magnitude of funds required
to purchase the parking meters. Look, I would love
if Chicago boomed, y'all had tons of free cash flow, you could raise a bunch of
cheap debt, and you bought it from me down the road.
That'd be a great outcome for, frankly, everybody.
And these are your parking meters.
But that is not the position the city found itself in today, and so I was
surprised at that interloping bid, and then I was really surprised at the
number.
But look, some of that may be wrong. I don't know.
That's just the competitive intel that we had.
It's my job to make it as good as I can.
I will qualify it, though, that any of that can and may be
inaccurate. So please, for the record, if any of that's wrong,
I'm sorry. But that was the best of our knowledge.
Thank you.
Right.
Excuse me, you're out of turn, Alderman Quinn.
That question will come up.
Alderman Waguespack.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, and thanks to both.
I'll swing back around later if
some of my other questions haven't been answered, if I could, for a second round.
But I appreciate you pointing out that we have an ordinance here
that the mayor is saying that he or a number of
other city officials could
agree to on this contract, and I just wish the mayor would come forward and say yes
or no very specifically where he stands on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Waguespack. Alderman O'Shea.
Point of information,
Alderman Nugent.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question for counsel.
Mr. McDonald, when you were answering Alderman Waguespack's questions and
referenced your client, who is your client in this instance?
The law department is the
lawyer for the city. That
includes both the city council and the administration.
Thank you.
Go ahead. Do you have another point of information you want more clarity on,
Alderman?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mm-hmm.
If possible, yes, as council has been told that we have an
independent counsel assisting us here, and I'm just confused with
respect to the representation. If
you are representing the administration and
have a wall and are unable to answer a multitude of questions
because of an NDA and privilege, and we are told we have
another counsel,
please advise.
There was a request to provide
separate counsel for the city council in connection with considering this
ordinance. The law department engaged Jones Day for that
function.
That does not mean that the law department is no longer in
a attorney-client relationship with the city council.
You are still our clients, even though we've also brought in Jones Day to
provide
assistance as well.
One of the difficulties of this form is that lawyers cannot
provide their clients, including all the members of the council,
with legal advice that should be given in
a privileged setting,
and this is a public forum, which destroys privilege.
So any lawyer speaking to their client in a public forum like
this has to be considering whether or not
the answer is providing legal advice and could therefore
be subject to
destruction of privilege as opposed to providing factual information,
such as the answer I gave to Alderman Waguespack about section 15 of the
ordinance providing that this particular approval has to be done
by the city council. That's factual. That's just in the ordinance.
But interpreting agreements and what agreements mean,
it gets into legal advice, and I would be happy to do that
in a setting that preserves the privilege between me
and my client, in this case, members of the city council.
Thank you, Chair, for letting me ask that question.
Thank you. Alderman O'Shea.
Thank you, Chairman.
I wanted to kind of follow up a little bit on that line of questions.
And I don't know if Mr. McDonald can answer this or if Mr.
Wiper can answer this.
Can someone tell me,
in this room,
did the City of Chicago put a bid in for the parking meters several months
ago?
Yes, we did. I can answer that.
And
what was that bid? What was the amount?
Any information about the bid and the documents is subject to the
problem I alluded to earlier
So, I don't know if this is-
Asking-
Well, I'm starting to like Mr. Wiper a whole lot more.
Could, if you wouldn't mind, sir
That's our guy. I may ask or contribute an additional question, which is,
privilege is designed to protect.
What is protective to the city about
non-disclosure of that bid?
Sorry if this is going to be frustrating, but this is getting into a legal-
Oh, you have no idea, Jim, how frustrating this is
And it's a difficulty of the fact we're in a public
forum.
You can ask me any questions.
Excuse me. How much was the bid that the City of
Chicago put in for the parking meters?
We understood it to be $3.3 billion. $3 billion.
3.3. $3.3 billion.
And that was at some point last fall? I do not know, to be clear.
We believe that bid was placed at some point in the fourth
quarter of 2025?
That is my understanding.
Question.
This question's for Mr. McDonald.
And again, this goes to the bid bond.
Again, I am not going to be able to-
This subject of privilege
... respond to those detailed questions.
So,
Mr. Wiper, we believe the City of Chicago put
a bid in, somewhere in the ballpark of $3.3 billion in
the fourth quarter 2025 for the parking meters.
I don't know if you believe it, but I believe it.
And,
Mr. McDonald,
so I just want to understand this. As the
lawyer for the taxpayers, for the city, for the city council,
why was that not disclosed to this body that we were bidding
$3.3 billion that we don't have
for the parking meters?
I would be happy to discuss all of that with you in a non-public forum,
not in this public forum.
Why is the public not entitled to that discussion? Sorry.
Mr. McDonald, do you ever remember a time where the City of Chicago signed a
non-disclosure agreement
on a contract like this?
There is, in the concession agreement, a section that
provides that information
given to the city, when it requests information from Chicago Parking
Meters, is to be held confidentially.
That is in the agreement that the city council approved back in 2008,
and then approved the amended and restated version of that contract
in 2013.
That is in that agreement.
Excuse me, Alderman Waguespack, point of order.
Mr. McDonald, does it also say in that portion of the agreement
that if CPM waives
that
nondisclosure,
that the city can provide that information?
And I'm just paraphrasing what I think it says from back in 2008.
I would have to read it again. I haven't-
And that proprietary information
from CPM, which we do not expect here today.
Proprietary information.
Oh, don't worry, I'm coming back to you.
It's all right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The confidential-- If I could respond.
Mr. Chair. A legal contract is
an agreement between two parties.
Two consenting adults can agree or waive any provision
they like in a legal contract.
We have signing ability at this table to waive
our right to confidentiality around the information under
discussion.
I don't know if you do,
but I think it is fair that the alderpeople ask,
"Why not?"
And know
that we would be happy
to have that information made available, and are willing,
as one half of that
contract counterparty duo, to sign that at will.
Thank you. I'd like to ask Chairman that moving forward,
if we can open up a line of communication directly
with the gentleman to your right to get any available
information. And I just want to kind of sum this up.
So the mayor put a bid in
six months ago,
$3.3 billion for parking meters that we don't have the money for.
Didn't disclose that to anybody in the city council.
He then agreed to a non-disclosure agreement to not have to talk about said
agreement,
and now is unwilling to share with us information. Now, I know Mr.
McDonald here is the mouthpiece, and the lawyer,
but I'm guessing someone up on the fifth floor is listening right
now. I think we need to get someone down here to answer some of these questions.
And in closing, I want to talk a little bit about the
hypocrisy that we see going on right now,
and I want to be clear. Everything about this is difficult for us as elected
officials.
We are stuck with a situation that the overwhelming majority of us had
nothing to do with many years ago, and there's no sense in
belaboring that point.
However,
if we're going to start talking about subsidiaries of subsidiaries that have
something to do with a horrible part of our history, and that's the
transportation of law-abiding migrants
I think we need to start talking about some of the biggest air carriers there are
that fly in and out of O'Hare and Midway International Airports.
I think we need to talk about a company that does more
communications contracts with the city than any other.
I think we need to talk about one of the largest provider
of business
advice that we get.
Companies that have contracts with OEMC and CDPH and Department of
Human Resources for tens of millions of dollars.
And wait for it, folks, those companies I'm talking about
have given myself
and the majority of the city council-
Alderman O'Shea, can you-
... tens of thousands of dollars of donations.
In fact, 70% of the city council. So that, ladies and gentlemen,
that is hypocrisy.
Thank you, Alderman O'Shea. Alderman Moore.
Thank you,
Chairman.
And I think we've asked this in some private meetings, but I just want to ask
publicly. You all right now have no interest right
now, financial interest in the parking meter deal at this time, Stone Peak?
Sadly not.
I'm sorry?
Sadly not.
Okay.
So
my question is,
we have to fill out
slavery era business and corporate insurance disclosures.
You all filled out that disclosure with the city
already?
I believe so. I did I-
Yes, they have.
Okay. And did anything come back, Chairman?
Not that we are aware of. Nothing that stood out.
Okay. Thank you. And so my next question is,
right
now, do Stone Peak do any
type of business or any type of business with the city at
all, or are they involved in any city
contracts or
in any way?
James, I think you've got a list.
Do you have that list in front of you?
Sorry, I'm not trying to dodge it, I just don't have the stats. I want to be right.
Can you hear me? Okay, great.
Can you say your name for the record before you speak?
Sure thing. This is James Hurt. I'm a principal at Stone Peak, working on the deal
team for Chicago Parking Meters.
We do have a lot of business. Our portfolio companies have a lot of
business in Chicago. We have over-
Slower and louder.
Sorry?
Slower and louder.
Yeah. We have a lot of businesses in the city of Chicago through our
portfolio companies. Our portfolio companies operate over 118 sites in
the city and employ over 1,700 people.
In the Chicago MSA, in the Chicago proper, we have over 40
sites and employ over 477 people. Over 10 of our
portfolio companies have a large presence in the city of Chicago.
And part of this deal, we love the city of Chicago.
We want to invest more in the city of Chicago, so this, we want to add to it.
And just without giving an exact number, just
off the top of your head, this business that you do with the city of Chicago, which
is great,
what we say is-
That's in the city. I'm not sure if it's directly-
But in the city. In the city, right.
Yeah. No, right.
I get you. Is that over a billion? Just give me a
number.
Gosh. We have two large data centers. We have a bunch of industrial warehousing.
We've got a couple of refrigerated warehouses.
Just a number off the top of your head. You don't have to be exact.
I hate to get it wrong, so can I send it to you?
No, because I'm not asking you for an exact.
Just-
I mean, I-
Can we get that information through the chair?
It's got to be like... Well, the data centers are worth a gazillion dollars these
days, so it's got to be a lot.
Sorry. And?
I said a gazillion.
Mr. Wiper, can we get an exact number through the
chair? And we're asking to get-
We'll follow up with backup and information supporting-
We'd like to get it by June 30th, if possible.
Okay. And so my follow-up question-
Mr. Vana Blade.
I hope the talk stopped at some point.
My follow-up question to that is, can you tell me
some of the things that you're engaged in civically,
in the civic community, from giving back to
the... Besides hiring, which I appreciate, but how
are you in your philanthropy in the city of Chicago, and what does that look
like?
I
think a lot about this. My husband and I tithe.
We both believe that we should give our, but more importantly, give our time and
our resources to those things that are important to us.
I'm on the board in New York of an organization called Street Squash.
It's an education,
community, and youth enrichment program supporting
low-income students in Harlem.
No, I'm talking about in Chicago.
Honestly, not a lot. I don't have-
Not a lot.
I don't live in Chicago. I don't have a lot of footprint here.
If we did this, I'd love to be here more, be as involved in Chicago as I am in New
York.
Okay.
But the businesses that's in Chicago, right now you can't say whether
they're engaged
right now?
I will investigate that.
We don't have businesses headquartered here.
One of my
kind of key initiatives when we acquire a business is to make sure
that the management teams
do a corporate day of service, but it's in the community.
I just think you have to go.
Giving money is fine, but charity is giving
something that's hard. If it doesn't cost you anything, like if I give whatever
money, I don't know, in my view, that's not that impressive.
No, I-
Going and taking your time and doing something that's hard.
It's more impressive that someone who doesn't have money gives $100 than someone
who does gives a billion. It has to be hard.
And so we don't have a business headquartered here.
And in terms of time and dedication, I encourage my businesses
To allocate those efforts-
I get it
... that you say it working.
So the business that you do have, how are you with
minority hiring? First of all, what does your
C-suites, if you will, look like? How do your management level positions look like
in terms of that?
Yeah. So, we got a question on this, and I'll go off on a bit of a tangent, but
look, for the obvious reason,
DEI is an important topic for me personally.
When I was a kid, I couldn't get married, and I couldn't have children.
And now, people have voted for rights that have given me the only thing that
really matters, which is an incredible family.
If this went terribly today, I'd FaceTime my son on the way out, and it'll all be
fine, right?
So I have a strict commitment to that.
We have a DEI policy for the board,
which will be in place here.
For just sake of time, if you could provide through the chair,
people that's in those management level positions, since you say you
support it, provide through the chair who some of those people are in
those positions.
Yeah. I'm happy to send you a list on every one of the boards that I
sit on.
Okay.
There is myself, and then at least
either... They're small boards. I think when big boards get too big for the sake of
big, it's not helpful.
I'm talking about what I-
At least one woman or at least one non-white person.
I'm talking about more the people that-
Excuse me. You guys are talking over each other up here,
so I need you to do one at a time because we're taking this down officially.
And I'm just saying just
mainly the people you have in management positions in your company from
an equity standpoint. You don't have to answer, just provide that through the
chair. My next question is as-
Yeah
... it relates to the meter. I know right now, and correct me if I'm wrong,
Chairman, in the contract as it is now,
part of the true-up is the meter for holidays, right?
The residents do not get free meter holiday parking,
correct, at this time, correct?
I would let CPM answer that.
There is no free meter holidays, correct.
Okay. So although we say we cannot change the contract,
is that something you all would be willing to
do?
Any changes made to the system are actually made by the City
Council, and so anything that you want to do is within
your purview to change.
You're Mr. Pedrelli, right?
Yes.
Could you please just identify yourself for the record for the court reporter?
Sure. I'm Dennis Pedrelli. I'm CEO of Chicago Parking Meters.
So any changes to the system actually are the purview of the City Council.
So anything that has to do with rates, anything that has to do with additional
spaces, removal.
But there's a true-up piece in there if we do that, correct?
That's correct, yes.
What I am asking is,
and this would be to the company who are buying,
would that be something you would be amenable to, or would you be
still looking for a true-up in there?
Is that something that you can give back to the residents of the City of
Chicago?
So,
there was a question about what would be different
under our ownership as it relates to management approach.
And hopefully, I don't know my style, but lawyers hate it,
I generally prefer it, and it's my decision,
is
an open channel of communication.
One thing that strikes me as incredibly obvious is that that channel has not
existed historically and does not exist today.
It is crazy
that time and again,
the city has not availed itself of the myriad
existing
abilities
to avoid true-up payments.
If you want a holiday, you can add a couple two more parking meters somewhere that
doesn't have a huge impact to your district or doesn't impact
folks generally. Correctly managed, we should
be in tight dialogue about what the city wants,
how we can better deliver that under the existing concession,
and how we can help you all look good.
I mean,
meters in front of businesses,
oddly enough,
are in many instances actually beloved by those businesses because it creates
turnover. Someone doesn't just park their car there all day such that
it's more difficult for patrons to go to that business.
And so if you create that turnover,
you can add a meter to the business office,
and that allows you to credit
that towards a holiday. We should be having that conversation,
and we're very open to it. I'm going to give you my cell phone number when we
leave.
Thank you.
Or ideally, Dennis'.
Thank you, Alderman Moore. You want a round two?
No.
I would like to add that they did provide us with information about their
charitable
involvement in the City of Chicago and
nearby.
You were given that. It was emailed to you, and also
WBE, MBE reports
were included in the package.
I'm not sure that it looked at the specifics of the
senior management, which you're, I think, asking for today.
So we will follow up with Stone Peak after
this meeting.
Alderman Sancho Lopez.
Thank you,
Madam Chair, and I want to preface by saying that, of
course, this was a terrible deal for the City of Chicago to begin with, and I will
ask that we enter to the record
independent legal opinion
that I submitted to the Finance Committee.
It has been entered into the record, Alderman.
Thank you.
I would like to preface by is
particularly bothersome the level of unseriousness of
the people that are here to ask to do business with the City of Chicago.
So I ask the chair that they only answer the questions that the committee members
are asking. I'm not interested in any other opinion and
comment on a deal that has already been terrible for the City of
Chicago.
My question, and I think you already answered, but I couldn't hear.
What was the exact bid, and when did you bid
for the CPM
deal?
James, I'll let you provide the exact date.
I would just like to state for the record, I apologize if this comes across as
unserious. I am
deeply serious about the topics here today.
This is just my style.
Just like you have a style.
Yeah. This is James Hurt, principal at Sun Peak.
We bid $2.53 billion
for the asset, and we made our final bid in early
December
of 2025.
What date was that?
I'll have to get you the exact date.
The
bid is based on what? The market valuation?
What is your bid on? I heard about what was the bid from the
City of Chicago, but I think those bids usually come from market valuation.
Is that correct? Where do you come with that number?
We bid the number that we were willing to pay.
So
people are willing to pay based on what?
The maximum number at which we thought the risk-return
profile
delivered by that purchase price was appropriate for
the underlying asset
and the stated goals of our limited partners.
Yeah.
I'm sorry, Alderman Arreola, do you have some comment to make?
Excuse me.
I
don't know what's going on back there.
Alderman
Cesar Lopez.
I'm going to stay on topic.
Yeah. Go ahead. What's your questions?
Because I think it is clear that the City of Chicago is off the hook for
another bad deal. I don't see how this, if any way,
shape, or form, will help the City of Chicago in a way
that
will somehow be better. What we already have is a terrible deal as it is.
So-
I'm trying to understand. I think this company, CPM,
already made in the first 10 years.
In 10 years, they already made their investment back and made half a billion
dollars in profit. So I want to understand from you,
what is the kind of controls? This to me is a terrible deal,
violates antitrust laws, all sorts of things.
What is it that you're asking the City Council to do that it will be better for
people in the City of Chicago? I am not understanding.
You're obviously here to make money.
So I'm trying to understand from you, what is it that you're offering to the City
of Chicago and this council that will represent an improvement from
CPM for the current agreement that we have, which is a terrible deal.
Lots to unpack there. So as a point of clarification, we are not
undertaking a transaction with the City of Chicago.
At least my understanding of
the point of this forum
is to give the alderpeople
the forum, the open opportunity
to ask questions of those folks who we hope will be your
partners on a go-forward basis. I
have no comment.
I'll use a Jim McDonald line, that I'd be willing to give
in public, although I'm happy to speak to it in private, on the appropriateness of
the bid price at the original time of the concession.
But I will not apologize for the sins of a father I did not have.
Point of clarification.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In hearing some of the questions,
and correct me if I'm wrong, my question is: if you did a risk-return assessment,
are you willing to share what you believe the return to be that led you to that
bid number? So any calculations, what you said, "Hey, we're going to make this
amount of money, so we're willing to put this much up." If you're willing to share
that through the Chair or anything, is that kind of what you're getting at?
That's right.
10.5% or something like that.
How much is that?
Fitch has our model.
We've
given every...
Yeah, what's the behind dollars?
Total dollar, I don't know that. We think about it generally in
terms of-
But you just said that you-
Return.
So I think for a-
Excuse me.
Sorry.
Alderman Vasquez. You can ask your point of
clarification. If you want to delve into this deeper-
Yeah
... you have to wait your turn.
Totally. My point of clarification is I would like that in dollars. Thank you.
Right.
I think that was exactly what I was getting at.
So, it's clear that you bought this based on projections of the market.
It is clear that you know and you have some projections in
terms of how much this will mean to you in the bottom line.
You are not asking the City Council, clearly you don't see this as a
way to ask our council for any kind of partnership.
As you were mentioning, you're saying that this is between private sector, and
you're letting us know what this transaction is.
To me, it's like, what are those projections that make you bid
into this asset, and what are those projections will mean?
I can tell you, I wish the City Council here, and that's why I take issue with
people who voted for this shameful thing to have any audacity to call me out,
because this is a matter of public.
Look, people in Chicago are outraged by this, are people who actually have
asked the City Council to have more control over this
meter. So I don't have a problem with the city bidding on this.
I do have a problem with a company that comes here to do business with the City of
Chicago and yet cannot tell me how much money you're going to make.
How you cannot answer that?
I apologize. I've not tried to dodge that question.
Literally-
You definitely dodged the question.
You totally dodged the question.
All right. You've asked your question.
He's answered the question the way he wants to answer it.
You can have-
I will follow up with that number. It's a total number of dollars over 58
years. It will seem high. It is, in our view, appropriate.
The city's own adv- When the city employed
PwC, who, I think it was that, it was public, I don't know.
It's in one of those redacted documents that was
published in some article. They came up with 3.3.
That seems crazy. We bid literally as much. We bid the first number.
We stayed consistent with our bid through the entire piece.
We did not try to chip. We thought that bid was honest and
fair.
Okay, define honest and fair.
I
mean, I understanding based on valuation, the city can make a
bid, right? We're beyond that. That is already done.
So I don't need your opinion on that.
What I need your opinion on is what are you going to make, because that will
have an effect on how rates will affect people in the city of Chicago.
In other words-
The City of Chicago chooses rates
... phrase this, because I understand the dodging the question.
Let me rephrase this. Does the City of Chicago, does this council have
any control over rates? I know because you have a true-up, so you will
never lose. Anytime that they're changing rates, you will always win.
You know who's off the hook? Chicago taxpayers.
The Chicago users. They're off the hook.
So I need to know from you, what is your bottom line, how much money you're
willing to make out of this, because that will give a sense on this council
on how much people are off the hook in potential higher
rates. That's what I need an answer from you.
I will do my best to provide whatever information helps you understand that
fact.
I ask a very simple question. I cannot believe that a financial
company cannot provide a simple answer.
I think he said that he would try to provide that answer to you through
the chair, not in this forum. Right?
I mean, I'm happy for it to be public.
I don't have-
We're committed to full transparency, right?
You just said that you are committed to full transparency.
I don't know what to do here. Yeah, sorry.
I understand that. I have round two.
Thank you.
Alderman Martin
will be counted towards quorum, and Alderman Fuentes.
Okay, okay, you guys. Settle down.
Boys, boys, settle down.
Alderman Lopez.
The original Lopez, yes. Thank you.
I, for one, appreciate your honesty.
It's a breath of fresh air to have people
sitting where you are answering us, making our administration
uncomfortable.
But I do want to point out a couple things, if I may first.
To my colleague's question as to where the mayor stands, I think it's obvious where
the mayor stands. He stands in full support of this because, as his letter
says, just to remind everyone,
"I transmit herewith an ordinance for your approval."
He didn't ask us to deny it. He didn't ask us to decline it.
He asked us to approve it. So the mayor's office, his legal team,
and everyone upstairs wants this deal.
The question that I have, and I think that would be who all
of my colleagues with questions is, thank you, Chairman, and thank you, and thank
you for all the documents this thick that you gave us.
But the first question I have is actually to the law department,
because in every time this agreement has been amended,
we have amendments and concession changes,
revisions.
To my colleague's point, what are we getting out of this deal?
What changes are we doing? And
I'd like to know what amendment
concessions did we get out of this proposal that's being presented to us
today?
I know that's not privileged.
I don't think,
Jim, you can answer that, can you? I think this is a deal between-
So I apologize. I missed the question given the direction.
So if I may, but we've had,
Chairman, numerous amendments
to the
parking meter concession agreement.
So
what changes in this moment has this
administration asked for in this agreement while we're
discussing the transfer of ownership?
To this agreement, right?
Again, for the record,
Jim McDonald, managing deputy corporation counsel for transactions
in the law department.
The city got an approval request
back in March
under
Section 17 (1) of the concession agreement
for the city to approve a transfer of ownership of
CPM. The city is
responding to that request. Under Section 15 of
the 2008 ordinance,
any such request for that approval
has to be given or not given by the city council.
Yes. Understand that. Read that, because I have it right in front of me.
The question was, have we asked for anything to our
colleague's point about concessions, about how we deal with
true-ups, how we deal with additional spaces, how we deal with any terms, how we
deal with any of the hours of operation?
Because every one of these other amendments that I've seen throughout the
years, we've always taken an opportunity.
I mean, we even get down to the nitty-gritty on where you can park on
Lincoln Avenue with new meters. So I think
Mr.
Wiper has mentioned that there are smart ways to manage this.
So if we're having issues with how we manage it now, are we using this
opportunity with a potential new owner,
operator to negotiate any of the amendments or concerns
that have ever been brought up by this body?
Yes or no?
I would like to refer that question to the Department of Finance, which
is the operating client managing the concession agreement, if you
don't mind.
I'd be happy to respond-
No. Excuse me one second.
You can-- I would like Mr. Hastings to respond first, and then we'll
come to Mr. Wiper.
Okay. For the record, Chip Hastings,
Deputy Director of Financial Policy in the office of the CFO.
I think that's an excellent question.
The fact of the matter is that the existing ordinance,
I think is, defer to law department to expand on this, is limited-
They deferred to you
... well, is limited in its review under their current terms of the agreement.
I will say that the existing ordinance does not in any way
impact the existing business terms that are captured
within the existing-
So if I may, the short answer is no. We have not asked for
any changes to the operating agreement of this.
I'm not able to speak to whether anybody has asked for any concessions.
I can tell you the current ordinance does not contemplate any
changes to any of the business terms under the existing agreement.
So-
It's a valid question
...
so
what I'm hearing, and I think what all my colleagues are hearing is that no.
No effort was made, no introduction was made on our end.
How about on yours?
It is my understanding, and hope,
that what we're here to discuss today is,
candidly, whether or not you all think
we will be a better owner than the existing owner.
If you really were to boil it down, the legal interpretation of whether we are
qualified, I think it is frankly unambiguous that we satisfy all those
requirements. One can come-
That's not what I was asking. I'm not getting into that weeds.
Don't just say-
I'm just simply asking if, did they present to you any potential
changes
with regards to the
execution of this agreement?
I will start by defending Jim McDonald now,
because
it was not, frankly, his place nor opportunity to do so,
as part of this transaction.
Okay. So I respectfully disagree
because as you were educating my colleague that city
council has the ability to set rates, city council has the ability to
make amendments. The question is, are we in this moment where we
are, by ordinance, dealing with this transfer of ownership
and sale? Are we using this moment to execute any
amendments that we see are necessary to the City of Chicago?
And that is an appropriate question.
That is a very appropriate question because every year we have
conversations about this deal. Now, if that's not the
case and we're simply just putting our heads down and saying, "This
is a business transaction between two vendors," fine.
But admit it. Say that we're not interested in trying to do
what every person in this room is trying to do, which is find
ways to make this more palatable if we are not the owners.
To be clear, I think-
The next question that I have-
Excuse me, Alderman Lopez, were you trying to-
Yeah. Look, of course everybody would want
to improve the concession. Wouldn't the best thing be for rates to go to zero and
this basis to go to zero? But that is
not,
to my understanding, and I think
whatever council is
opining on behalf of the city council would tell you all,
is
what is being asked of you today. And so,
I
encourage for the avoidance of disappointment,
to think about,
again, whether or not you believe that the channel of communication, that the
willingness to engage
in implementation of those various existing concession
agreement framework tools that exist today would be better,
calling me or
Jim Wilmot, not to throw him under the bus.
That, to my understanding and my hope,
is what we're talking about. And you may well come away being like, "Screw that
guy," and it'll be much worse,
and that's fine. I disagree and would be disappointed, but
such is anyone's right. I rub plenty of people the wrong way.
But that fundamentally is what we're talking about, and I do just want to try to
kind of bring us back to that point, if I can.
Okay. Thank you very much. Round two, Alderman Lopez?
Sure. Why not?
Thank you. Alderman Taylor.
A very simple question. If the city council votes
no on this, what happens?
You'll never see me again. We get a little money. I'm gone. It's okay.
My legal costs get paid.
What Morgan Stanley and the existing ownership group choose to do does not involve
me at all. They'll probably sue you.
My question is more about, is there a way to negotiate
with the Laz parking, because that's who my issue is with.
I have constituents and people who've worked for the organization.
I want to know how many EEOC complaints you all have.
I want to know about your turnover.
I want to know what the people who work for you look like.
I've had people who work for your organization who have been beat
up by folks because they passed out tickets, and they have not
been made whole again by this company.
And so I'm curious to what are you all going to do to protect our
workers?
I assume that question is for me.
Absolutely.
Yeah. Thank you.
So we do have, I do have some statistics for you in terms of our
EEOC and AA. So we do have Chicago residency.
We have 81% of the people that work for us are
Chicago residents. That's out of 110
people. 100% of the labor minority
is
minority.
59% of the skill minority, we were talking a little bit about executive
level positions before, 59% is skilled minority.
In terms of laborers for females, that's 52%, and then
59% for skilled female. The enforcement situation, I
think you're alluding to the enforcement situation where people-
Mm-hmm
... unfortunately do go out in the streets and are treated very
poorly-
Mm
... by some of the patrons that do
park in the system. We do everything possible to try to protect those
people. In fact, in front of this council, not too long ago, city council
passed an ordinance protecting agents that were not
police officers, and we worked
with the council to include our enforcement agents as part of
that, so effectively making it, I forget the terms
for it, but just...
Excuse me.
Making it, um...
I'm sorry. What's that?
Yes. No. Thank you, Alderman. Enhanced penalty for those people that do
get attacked on the street. We report every single attack.
It doesn't matter what it is. If somebody spits on somebody,
our people know that they should be reporting that. We do a police report.
Some of you may know Kevin O'Hara who's our city liaison, and
Kevin will follow up with the police department as much as
possible. He'll go to court dates to make sure that we're
following through, that everyone's following through to protect those people.
We will also pull those people off the street and try to make them as comfortable
as possible, as comfortable as they want to be.
We never push them back out in the street.
During that entire time, we are paying them 40 hours a
week as they try to get back onto the street.
What we can't control, unfortunately, are
people that are angry about getting citations.
But we do have a lot of training for our enforcement officers in
particular that try to de-escalate the situation and
walk away. We do that training at least once a month,
and we certainly do that with new officers as well.
It's a difficult job, no doubt, and everybody
who walks into that job understands what the job
is. And so we do try, in fact, in
2018, we made an effort to pay those
people more. So since 2018, we've been paying those people
$2.50 to $3.50 more per hour
to do that job because we know it's difficult.
That's above the union rates, that's above living wage,
and
minimum wage at this point in time.
So we've tried everything possible, and let me just add about the
rate. In 2022, we actually made that rate
as part of the collective bargaining agreement with the union, so it
became permanent. Before it was just
because we wanted to do it. It was nothing in writing.
But then in 2022, while we were negotiating the
CBA, we made that a permanent part of the
CBA to pay enforcement officers more.
So we are trying everything possible to help those people who have
a very difficult job.
Your middle management suck, and so I didn't know about
Kevin until I was at a briefing. But the last administration,
I complained so much about it that people quit.
You all are not very good at when somebody gets attacked,
they literally are made to go back on the street the next day.
That's happened in several instances, and I can show you the report.
I do want in writing all of the information that you gave me, but I also want to
see what the EEOC, how many complaints did you all actually have?
Because the folks that you all are sending out there, they've been out there in the
rain, the snow. We've had to let them in City Hall when it's raining.
They're asked to go out to spaces. They've been attacked on a route, and then two
weeks later was asked to go back on that route.
Will you send that to-
This is the parking people. The people that you hire to
manage over the people that actually are going out, they suck.
They are horrible. They don't know how to talk to people.
And this is not what I heard. It's a lived experience.
And so I want y'all to do better with how y'all treat people who you say
81% come from the city. Was that the number you gave?
Correct.
Those people are our citizens. And so the expectation is that our workers and
our citizens are treated correctly. And that's not what happened.
And so I want you all to take a real good look because at the end of the day,
whether I vote for this or not, this deal going to happen.
But you all are not going anywhere.
I will not own that. So I would appreciate if you would send to me what he sends to
you.
Absolutely.
Alderman, I appreciate your comments. I'll look into it.
Yes. I want to make something very clear.
This deal has nothing to do with us, and no matter whether we say yes or no,
it's going to happen. Who it goes to, I don't think we really got a say
so. And sitting here to listen to all of this happen, I wish this would've happened
when the parking meters were sold. Which we all know they should've been sold.
But that's neither here or there. But at the end of the day, for me, it's
the people that they're no different than the people who do enforcement for our
city and for finance and for our police officers.
And so I
better get a better results from you all on how y'all treat those workers.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for that, Alderman Taylor.
And, through the chair, Mr. Pedrelli, could
you give us the information she's asking for on
the EEOC-
EEOC reports. Yes
... complaints.
Alderman Nugent,
followed by Alderman Beal.
Did she say I'm up?
Yep.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I want to thank you for getting a lot of information out to us and trying
to get us all the things we've been asking for. I'm very grateful.
I don't envy the position you're in.
I wanted to go back to the questions I was asking earlier about
representation and
going back to Mr. McDonald. In the event that there is
a conflict between your client, as
in the administration and city council, who do you represent then?
It can be end up.
How would I put this? We try to give the best advice we
can to all of our clients,
and we may have to provide
different groups of lawyers within the law department to provide
advice to different parts of our client at times in
order to navigate that.
Have you been in a situation like this where you've had to give fractured opinions-
No
... to the city?
I have not had that experience.
And how long have you been counsel with the city, Jim?
Since January of 1991.
Okay. I appreciate that. When we were speaking earlier,
Chair,
there was conversations about the role of counsel with respect to this
agreement. I believe it's in section
1.15 where it talks about
other folks that can be involved in this agreement to include the mayor, the chief
financial officer, the director of the Department of Revenue.
I know we have Chip here.
What is the position of the CFO on this?
Again, for the record, Chip Hastings.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question.
So, in the agreement, it talks about who can
approve and the authority over the concessions agreement.
And
specifically under, it looks like 1.15B,
authority of the city, whenever this agreement provides that an act is to be taken
or performed or approval or consent is to be given by the city, such an act may be
taken or performed or approval or consent may be given by the mayor
or the chief financial officer of the city, parents, or if that office is
vacant, the city comptroller or the director of the Department of Revenue of the
city without further action by the council of the city, and the
concessionaire may rely thereon in all respects.
So in addition to us, the city council, it appears
that other folks in city government can weigh in on this
issue, and so I would love to know what the opinion is of
your department.
I am happy to weigh in on technical or operational questions
related to the ongoing management of the existing concession agreement.
I'm happy to talk about the ongoing SIS and
true-up costs.
Beyond that, I would either defer to counsel or have to contemplate and submit my
answer through the chair.
So...
So you will give us an answer to that
through the chair.
Is that what you're saying?
Again, I apologize. I'm just not entirely sure what issue I'm being
asked to weigh in on as far as my opinions or thoughts on the existing
concession agreement or the transfer of ownership.
I would like your thoughts on whether you think this is a good deal for the
city.
Well, I'll just say that I think my sentiment mirrors that of most people in the
City of Chicago, including the city council, that the original agreement
has some serious challenges for the city.
I'll also say that the consideration before you via the ordinance, again, does
not address any of the business issues in the agreement.
It simply addresses the transfer of ownership from one party to
another.
Okay.
Chair, I think what we're seeing is a lot of folks that don't want to touch this
and are using NDAs and walls
and all sorts of excuses for not having skin in the game on something that is
critically important to the entire City of Chicago.
Jim, Mr. McDonald, you had mentioned earlier that the city had entered
an NDA. When did we enter this NDA on this?
I think you're referring to the confidentiality letter agreement.
Sure. When did we enter into that?
That was executed August 12th of 2025.
It was amended October 28th of 2025.
It is in effect until August 12th of 2027.
So it was amended in October of last fall as we were
in the midst of trying to deal with the budget.
Interesting. And then,
I believe,
sir, you had mentioned earlier that the city put in a bid for about
$3.3 billion last fall for this?
That's the best of my understanding. Of course, they wouldn't tell me.
We were competing for it, so that's just what we picked up in the market.
But that
is our understanding.
And you guys came in at about 2.5, 3 billion, roughly?
Yeah. There's some adjustments. I think it's like, I don't know.
Roughly?
3.5, 3.9. Yeah.
Okay, so
the city came in roughly a billion over
you guys, and all while we were duking out the most
contentious budget in the history of the City of Chicago, fighting over
dollars and efficiencies.
This is incredibly disheartening and the city is bound to a
confidentiality agreement until next August, which
seems to get us past some big life events that happen in the city
between now and February and April of next year.
That's so convenient.
Well,
Madam Chair.
We would reiterate our attempt to have terminated that agreement.
Dennis would reiterate his attempt to have terminated that agreement, and our
ongoing willingness to have done so.
Okay.
Mr. McDonald,
when you have a confidentiality agreement with another party,
can the agreement be terminated unilaterally?
Hypothetically, or are you talking about this particular agreement?
I'm talking about the agreement that we're talking about with Stone Peak right
now, that the city is saying they are bound to until August
of next year, and Stone Peak is saying that they've released you, or Morgan
Stanley?
Yes. I think it's with CPM, technically.
It is with CPM. It is not with Stone Peak.
Pardon me. CPM Has said that they've released you from?
CPM has issued some clarifications,
which I think you've alluded to at least one, and those
clarifications did not resolve the ambiguity,
and because of the ambiguity, we cannot discuss the bid, the city's
bid.
I think we know what the ambiguity is, but, okay,
Madam Chair, that's my questions for now. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Point of information, Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, and forgive me. With regards to the ambiguity question, is
the waiving of this
confidentially, is that universal?
Is it 100% on all items with regards to whatever that
non-disclosure was?
I'm confused. We didn't know that anything wasn't... Did we know?
I
think we thought
we were free and clear.
From CPM's perspective, on June 12th and June 18th, we did
send, as Mr. McDonald did mention,
letters to the city clarifying that we believe that the
information that was given during the bid process was open to
anybody in city, including the mayor's office, city council,
anybody associated in a position that is the city.
So is that all items? So there's nothing
that's still protected? All aspects of whatever you
previously had covered are now waived?
From our point of view, yes.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman Beale.
Thank you.
Followed by Alderman Baez.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, and
let me first thank you all for being here
today and going through this
process.
It's a challenging process,
but this is my third transaction that
we're going through, and each one of these transactions,
questions come up about the agreement, what we can do, what we can't do.
And
from day one, I knew
that there was not much that this body could do as it
relates to this agreement,
because this, again, this is the third time.
But what's challenging to me is the fact that
the city puts in a bid of $3.3
billion and doesn't tell this
body that we're even participating in a bid process
that we would at the end of the day have to approve.
So Mr. McDonald, who I have a lot of respect for,
how is it that
we as
a body did not know that we were bidding, but yet you all represent
us?
I'd like to think...
Sorry, I'd like to think about that a little bit, if you don't mind.
It would be incumbent
if the council approval was needed to go to the council.
Beyond that, that is not a law department
matter. I would have to defer to Finance or the mayor's
office as to how different
parts of the city talk to each other outside the legal
framework.
Well, again, I'm just really baffled
that
if this body had to approve $3.3
billion
if the bid was accepted,
then it comes to us, but we didn't have any knowledge of
the 3.3 being bid.
So how do you all spend money that you want us to
approve without our knowledge?
Help me understand that.
Spending money requires an appropriation,
so it
would have to have been appropriation of funds that
could be used for any kind of expenses that were done before any such
ordinance would've gone to the city council.
Okay.
Am I being clear?
I got you. I got you. And it is complicated. I do appreciate you.
Yeah.
But again,
2.5 billion with some change is what you guys bid it.
City's
3.3.
I will note there are some significant differences as it relates to tax treatment,
so the actual spread is lighter than that, but the financeable number for
the city would've been the higher figure.
Okay. Well,
let me just say,
we need to be embracing business
instead of running business away.
We need to be embracing people who are trying to invest in this
city, and not make it difficult
for... Because it sends the wrong message
to not only big business, small business, mid business.
We're sending the wrong message that the city is not open for
business.
And so
we need to change that narrative.
And so hopefully, I don't have any questions for you guys
because again, I've done my homework and the only thing I ask
is for you all to help reinvest in
this city,
be a partner in this city
to where we can employ more people, which will help our economy grow,
help us reinvest in infrastructure, which our roads
need help. And so
from my standpoint, and
like I said, I've been around a while
That we need to be laying out the red carpet for companies like this to
help us do more in our communities.
And so I'm sorry that you all have to go through what you are going through today.
And we were all put in this position by this
administration. This body was put in this position, and you guys
were put in this position by this administration because at the end of
the day, they did not want anybody to know
that they bidded $800 million more than
you guys did.
And that's the bottom line, that it was totally,
totally
a derelict of duty
and to put forth a bid, and I don't know whose
numbers, maybe somebody fell asleep and hit the wrong decimal or something.
I don't know. But anybody who bids $800 million
more than the other, they need to be fired.
Well, to that I'll say nothing is bigger than an apology, and I really
appreciate it. I've been called a lot of things in a lot of places like this.
Don't bother me. And, I've had the opportunity through this process to meet a lot
of people who
I really like. So
no harm, no foul.
All right. Thank you, Alderman Beale.
Alderman Villegas, followed by Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is kind of in line with the disclosure, so
to the law department,
how much are we paying for Jones Day to represent us, the
other part of the corporation?
We have a budget of $40,000 a month.
$40,000 a month?
Mm-hmm.
My other question is, given the fact that CPM has stated
that they're willing to... Or they have stated that June
12th, the disclosure is no longer there,
why aren't we taking them up on the offer,
saving $40,000 a month,
and then attacking this whole project as a full corporation, so that
way we can get as much information as possible
and not have to be in this position where it appears that the
administration is hiding the ball?
Thus, we were requested to provide independent
counsel or a separate-
No, I know. But the reason why we're having independent counsel is because you guys
decided, the other half of the corporation decided, that you wanted to put forward,
agree to a non-disclosure that
CPM has said is no longer in place as of June 12th.
So my question to the law department is, if the other half of the party is saying,
"Hey, we're willing to
waive this," why aren't we all,
our corporation sitting down together as a team to figure out and get as
much information as possible instead of having to pay $40,000 a month to
outside counsel when we have lawyers that work for the corporation that are
supposed to represent us?
Is that something that we can do, Madam Chair?
Is this put forward something to say that the
other half of the... I'm sorry, the other half of the
deal has
put forward a waiver of June 12th and require the corporation to represent
us so that we can save $40,000 a month,
plus allow us the ability to have a transparent discussion around
this? Just this whole deal
and the way that it's going down is giving a lot of
us pause here because it feels like this is a political stunt.
And the reality is this deal is in place for another 50 plus years.
And so the way that you're approaching this is why a lot of us are in this
position to say we want no parts of this thing.
So I'm asking the law department if you would reconsider, accept the waiver that
they've put forward, and allow the law department that represents the corporation
to do its job on behalf of the board of directors.
If the ambiguity can be resolved,
we could look at accommodating what the request is.
Madam Chair, that's the end of my question.
All right. Thank you very much, Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Martin is not in the room.
Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you, very much, Madam Chair.
I will be needing a round two.
You said you will?
Oh, absolutely.
Oh, you know what? I knew that.
Thank you. Thank you.
We all knew that.
Yeah. I'll start. I've got a number of questions, but I want to start out with
Omni. As chair of the Latino Caucus
and co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, there are a number of us who
have extreme concerns about any level of association with Omni,
as it relates to the practices. Just yesterday we were
learning, and I'll read what I got over here.
"Omni,
large jet ICE removals to Africa and Asia.
People on board shackled at the wrists, ankles, and waists for a duration,
sometimes as long as 82 hours.
Omni having done 31 third-country deportations
since Stone Peak bought them in April 2025."
They're taking people to countries they didn't come from.
And,
my understanding, at some point teargas people to get them off of a flight, to
force them off. There is nothing about anything this organization and
company is doing that anyone should want to be a part of, and it affects the
reputation of anyone partnering with them and the city engaging in any of it.
So I'm trying to understand why there's even any continued thing, and y'all haven't
just ended any contracts and ended any association, if you hope to have a
conversation. Because for a sizable contingent of this council, it is a non-starter
to even talk about.
The
activities
Of ICE under the current administration could not be more abhorrent.
I have direct family who is a Latin American
asylum-seeking immigrant
in this country whose parents cannot come visit.
I could not be more epileptic. I personally
pledged every dollar profit from my direct investment and the associated
carried interest to ASAP.
I hate this. It was not the business we bought.
If there was anything I could be doing,
I want to say it to your face,
I am doing it.
Is there a continued investment?
Point of information, when did you buy that company?
God, James, you know.
Before the current administration.
Yeah, but they were still engaged in that activity prior, correct?
Yeah. The Omni- Well-
So were you apoplectic when you guys bought it?
Look, we had a big discussion about it.
The predominant
operation of Omni at that point in time was
relocation of-
Humans
... families. No, sorry. Totally different business.
Of
the spouses and families of
our active military into non-combat zones for the DoD.
That was the overwhelming majority of flights.
They also served through a subsidiary, CSI,
the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration,
for the past 20 years, under many administrations.
Block hours are down 40%.
I'm trying.
I can help you out with this. So, for clarity, and
I'm going to try my best to contain myself.
Yeah.
Over multiple administrations who all were engaged in the same kind of activity,
trust there's a reason people call
President Obama the deporter in chief.
So there are plenty of us that have an issue no matter who the president was.
Yes.
It is abhorrent behavior, period.
But you all knew that because they'd been doing it for a while when you purchased,
and you continue to have investment in it, correct?
We have an active sale ongoing of the business.
How much have you all-
That was contemplated at the time of-
How much have you made from it?
Dollars.
I don't know. We'll come back with that information.
Yep.
I'd be very happy to share it.
Yeah. Again,
I think it's pretty clear where I'm coming at on this.
There are members of us who won't even engage in conversation until that's
clarified.
I want it to be said, I think you should be using this opportunity
to shout as loud as you can about the behaviors
of DHS. I do not begrudge that at all, and I only-
Again, you guys-
It's been hard-
Look, I appreciate
the bleeding heart right now. Y'all weren't doing that when you decided to buy it,
so I don't need to hear it.
I would be-
I want to just ask because I've only got one question in. Mr. Chairman.
I would like to respond to that only in that
we have, I believe, honestly, that one can do more good
in action than in action, and we have
worked to
reduce the number of block hours under our contractual
obligations since the minute we owned that business.
Are there any other businesses you all have investment or share in that are either
benefiting from that or have benefited from slavery?
Well, I think we've all benefited from the latter.
Some businesses would actually have that, and they would know.
Is there any research that's been done to identify that in any of the businesses or
anything you're investing in?
Gosh, well,
I feel unqualified to opine on that topic, but-
You guys should hire somebody qualified to check it out. Thank you.
I have a second round.
Thank you very much, Alderman Vasquez.
They do have an EDS that they've given us, which looks
at on this anti-slavery issue.
That information is available to you and was sent to you.
Alderman
Lee, followed by Alderman Quinn, followed by
Alderman Fuentes.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to go back to,
and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, I'm
trying to understand a couple of things. Mr.
McDonald,
several of us were invited to a smaller
meeting about the transfer of the
parking meter contract. We were invited May
17th for something on May 18th.
Department of Law was notably missing from that meeting.
I believe that acting CFO Marr and a
member of the IGA team were in the meeting where we were told that the
city would not be able to provide any advice or counsel due to this NDA,
but the law department was not present. Were you aware of this meeting?
I believe I heard about it afterwards.
Okay.
I don't think I was aware about it before it happened.
So to be clear, to your knowledge, the law department was not invited to
participate?
Well, that's about me personally.
I don't want to speak for everyone in the law department, including the corporation
counsel. I would have to check within the department to be-
Yeah. If you can check with the law department, see if
anybody
was either aware or invited to the meeting, I would appreciate
getting that through the chair.
Sorry, could you repeat the date again?
Sure.
If you don't-
It was a meeting that was held on May 18th.
I think the Sunday was the 17th when we got the text message about this.
Because that's where we were told that the Department of
Finance and the Department of Law would not be able to provide any advice or
counsel on this transaction.
Point of information, Alderman Metz.
I was asking who was in the meeting.
What meeting are you speaking of, and who was there in the council?
Can that information be provided through the chair?
Yes, we can get that information to you, Alderman Metz.
Thank you.
It's a point that I don't think any of us are just trying to beat like
some sort of dead horse, and I appreciate that our partners are
here today providing as much information as possible
for us to go through.
I'm also going to sort of go back to the fact that the first
disclosure or non-disclosure, the confidentiality agreement, you said, was signed
August 12th, 2025, even before our budget
conversations had already started.
That is the case, right, Mr. McDonald?
That's August 12th, 2025. Correct.
Yeah.
With everything that is going on, and that we've had going on since this last
budget,
I'll just echo the sentiments of my colleagues.
We were fighting for every penny and loose quarter and penny
under every couch cushion in the city,
and in the background, the administration was
trying to negotiate a deal or put in a bid for $3 billion to buy
back these parking meters
with no transparency, no conversation with the council.
I get that nothing was actually technically before the council,
but I think this is
probably the heart of the problem that we're having here,
is the lack of transparency and the real, just, I won't even say
degrading of trust. There isn't any anymore.
The fact that the law department wasn't invited or that...
You're going to verify that, but that the law department wasn't present at that
initial meeting of the smaller group of us
seemed really intentional. I just want to say that on the record.
And to put this before the council with a decision this
big,
it's really offensive
on behalf of these people of the City of Chicago.
Most of us weren't here for the deal to begin with,
and
we all know what it represents, and that is the deal we have.
Look, no one's disputing that. Whether or not this sale goes
through, there's still a contract that goes through for another
50-plus years.
I think fundamentally, we've got to get through this piece of it.
I know my colleagues have a lot of other questions.
I'm going to get off that for a second. I know I've got two minutes left.
I do have a couple of
questions for the folks that are up here in the dais.
For CPM,
can you talk at all about the impetus for
putting the deal on the market or asking for bids?
Like, what changed in your
minds that you were ready to sell it or to sell your ownership interest?
Yeah. I work for CPM and not the ownership group.
Okay.
But I do understand why they did do it. It is a fund.
It's a closed-end fund. They've held it for 17 years, and
so as part of a closed-end fund in the financial world, they have
to sell their assets.
So that's normal. I'm sorry. I'm not, like, a financial expert, so that I
appreciate you explaining-
Yeah
... that piece of it. So it was always
going to have to be transferred at some point.
Correct.
And does the same thing hold true then for Stone Peak?
No. We're investing in this
out of an open life vehicle that is and will be, and we
expect to, through which we expect to own the asset through the life of the
concession.
Okay. And tell me how old Stone Peak is again as a company.
2011.
And do you have other examples of infrastructure that you've invested in that
is similar in nature to what we're talking about here with the parking
meters, or that provides the same kind of return?
So, Rob, do you want to speak to the core fund?
Rob manages this vehicle for us.
Is this on? Can...
Try it one more time. There's a little bit of a lag.
How about that?
Yeah.
So sorry, could you repeat the question?
The question was,
does Stone Peak have any other examples of infrastructure
investments currently that are similar in nature to the parking meter
deal or provide the same level of return that you're
anticipating?
Yeah. I think we are obviously invested across 100 different assets.
They make up different sizes and shapes across energy, transport, et cetera.
As far as contracts with governments, I think the
best example was a desalinization plant we had in the city outside of
San Diego,
where there was, I think, a 30-year concession with the City of San Diego
to build a desalination plant. We provided, I think, 10% of the drinking water
to the City of San Diego. That's probably the best comp as far as asset.
We obviously own a bunch of different assets, but that's probably the closest-
Yeah
... example of a concession like this.
And I would-
But there's a bunch of things we invest in with this type of return profile.
So okay, so with the same level of return?
Yeah. Most of what we do is a similar level of return.
Okay.
That's right.
Yeah. And with that asset, when we acquired that, we
signed that transaction December 24th, 2012.
It was a parking lot. Tough Christmas.
And we built that asset over the following three years and provided 54 million
gallons of water a day to the City of San Diego County.
It was a multi-stakeholder
development project. It used
all manner of constituents and from
the Water Authority, all the way to the Surfriders Commission, folks who were
worried about the way that the
several degree warmth of the exit intake water.
We ran it through an existing intake such that there was no coastline
modification required,
didn't impact the surf break. That one I struggled a little bit more with, but
ultimately, were able to undertake design changes, scope
changes, et cetera, that satisfied those groups enough
to sign up for that- 30-year take if
delivered water purchase agreement. It's been a big success out there.
The Colorado pipeline was getting sucked dry by the time it got all the way down
to Southern California.
At the time though, and the reason I give that preamble is, we did not have an
open-ended vehicle.
It was our first fund, a $1.65 billion vehicle, for context,
against the 90 or so odd we have today.
And that was a 12-year defined life fund.
And so after we brought it online, proved up the operations, et cetera,
we were forced to unsell it in much a similar way that Morgan Stanley is today.
That would've been a perfect asset to own in this vehicle had we had
it then. You would've loved to just own it and run it and operate it, and it was
folks we knew well, a community we knew well,
a team we knew well through the life of that concession.
Thank you. Madam Chair, I only had one more question, and it's for Mr.
Hastings. Can you, and I don't know how easy this will be to do,
can you give me a high level explanation of how the city arrives at,
how the agreement arrives to a true-up cost on an annual
basis?
Yeah. Again, for the record, Chip Hastings.
The system and service in general is just, it's a baseline value of the
entire system.
And so anything above 100% system and service, the city receives
a credit, not a cash payment, but a credit for future years.
Anything below 100%,
we have an obligation true-up in the form of payment.
We have to make true-up payments.
So is the baseline value in dollars or utilization
rate of the available concession spot?
It's a combination of many variables, but it's
essentially 100%. It's a combination of the utilization rate, the
overall value of the system. The factors include number of parking
spaces,
all sorts of things.
Okay. Someone made a comment earlier about
if we take something out of service, you might need to figure out where you need to
put two more meters. So I'm just trying to get a very
simple, and I know it's not simple, I will acknowledge that, but
for those that are tuning in and for those of us that are new to this,
when I take out a parking space, a metered parking space in Chinatown, let's say,
to put in a 15-minute flashing zone at the request of
a business owner, and they have applied to do this, they pay
whatever it is, $150 for the year. We're taking a meter out of service.
That costs us on the other end the true-up, correct?
Right.
So what I try to do is find another parking space to make up for it.
I don't know how my colleagues do it, but every time we take one out, I'm very
aware that we need to put one back someplace.
But what I hadn't been considering is how much the parking rates are.
Is that parking space that I'm replacing it with going to yield the same?
And do I need to do two spaces for the one, because that one, the one that I
put the flashing zone in for, was on Wentworth Avenue where there's constantly
traffic, and the one that I gave them was on some random corner on Canal
Street where there's no businesses nearby.
So, it sounds like it's a
combination of both and many other factors.
And I'm
conscious of the fact that we're having lots of other conversations where
we're changing infrastructure and how that plays into
all of this conversation. So,
I think you've answered my question saying that it's basically both.
It's some combination of both and several other factors.
It's not just the number of spots and utilization. It is the number of dollars.
So can you tell me what the baseline value was, or can you get that to us through
the Chair?
The baseline value-
You said that the true-up is based on a baseline value.
So at some point when the contract started, there was a value that was assessed,
right?
We've got a little presentation walkthrough we are happy to flip if you like.
That would be great. Thank you.
Her package, that one.
Sorry, that's it. Yeah.
L-E-E.
All right.
I'll come back for it later.
All right. Alderman Quinn, can I just ask the question before you go? Okay.
No problem.
Excuse me, Alderman.
No, go ahead.
Absolutely.
Every through the chair request will be provided to all aldermen.
Okay?
Should you be successful in this transaction, you're going
to
assume
a relationship with CPM, right?
Yes.
And they have debt.
They do. Well, I'm not sure exactly where it says legally,
but we are taking on all the existing obligations, yeah.
Right. So if they have a cashflow
problem or they don't have enough money to run the
concession, are you legally obligated to provide them with
any equity?
It's a good question. I don't know what the
performance obligations are exactly under the concession. I can come back.
We don't want to lose all our money, so we'll do our best to
make sure we don't hand it over. But it's a great question.
I apologize for not knowing. And,
I'll figure out what the emergency fund-
And if there are any kind of documents that address that-
For sure
... I'd be interested in seeing those.
Absolutely.
All right. Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question centers around this floating timeline.
I was led to believe this deal was supposed to be done June 30th.
Now, I'm hearing
date of July 24th, and the mayor, I believe,
said today it's a check-in, it's not a deadline.
It would be very helpful on the onset if we knew
what the expectations were from a timeline perspective.
Look, we are long past
the required approval date,
but-
We
want to make sure over the course of this process that we allow
as best we can.
There's a real cost to-- We're reserving all this money
to hopefully invest in your city. It is precluding us
from doing other things, of course, and
we are not
at want for opportunities.
So at some point, that breaks.
But
look, when did we send all that information originally?
January?
In service of what was the original
contractual
date? May 11th.
Obviously,
that's long in the rear vie-
it came to our attention that this group had not been in receipt of that
information.
What was May 11th? Because that's a new date for me. Yeah.
It's when the city was legally obligated to have-
I can step in here.
Yeah, go with Mike. Yeah.
So I think that the original information was given on March 12th,
and then the city had 45 plus an extra 15 days if it was
necessary to approve the deal. However, as the time went on,
it didn't appear that that was going to happen.
So all of us, Stone Peak, CPM,
decided we would
allow an extension. So there was an extension that was given to the city
one time, and then another extension that was until June
30th, and now another extension has been given until July
24th.
So I would ask so everyone on the board realizes full
well that certain members of this body were made aware of this on
May 18th. Right? That was-
We know. Yeah
That was testified today, right?
Then we hear about June 30th being a deadline, then we hear about July 24th.
The relevance of-
You do recognize full well that this was a
situation where the administration, in my opinion, tried to back this
council into a corner with a take it or leave it deal.
And so I don't know if July 24th is realistic, if we're
managing expectations appropriately.
Look, I
get it.
So I guess the question is, is July 24th a deadline or is it a
check-in? Because there is a conflicting opinion here on the
language that's being thrown around the city on this deal.
We are unaware of that. It's a deadline.
So July 24th is a deadline?
Yes.
A definitive deadline?
Yes.
I would add that the relevance of the March 12th date, I think, but Dennis, you can
correct me,
was it was the expiry of the city's bid, and that is why we were unable
to convene a forum prior to that date despite having submitted
our own bid in, Dennis, what, October? November?
Yeah.
Can you just repeat that one more time?
I believe-
So I can-
Yeah
... add to this if you like. So Stone Peak and the city came in with two bids.
Excuse me, can you speak up? Because I can't hear you very well.
I'm sorry.
Stone Peak and the city came in with two bids.
However, the city came in a little bit later.
So because it was the City of Chicago, we really wanted to accommodate the
ability for the city to try to purchase the meter deal if that's what they
wanted to do.
And when did the city's bid come in?
I don't know exactly. I don't have those numbers.
And plus, I can't-
You see I'm trying to work backwards here from the deadline, and
the details are continuing to come to fruition here.
In any case, at some point in time,
we gave notice that Stone Peak was going to be the purchaser,
and that information was given on March 12th.
March 12th,
that information was given to the City of Chicago?
Correct.
And the City of Chicago had 45 days from March 12th
to approve the deal?
That's correct. Plus an extra 15 if they request it.
Plus an extra 15, which put us at May 11th or
12th?
I don't have all the dates in front of me.
Okay.
I'm not doing well there.
Just so we're all on the same page.
Right.
It was May 18th that this body, some
members, not myself, I wasn't a part of that initial conversation,
were notified about this. That was May 18th,
six days after the deal was supposed to be done, after an extension
to the 45 days. Do I have that right?
It sounds like it. I'm not aware of when the information was given to city council.
Okay.
I'm not given city council.
So on top of that, an additional extension was
made to June 30th.
So we're on a second extension here.
Correct.
And now there's a definitive deadline of July 24th.
Correct.
Okay.
Thank you for the clarification.
I hope I can add, we've been trying.
And as you can see here, there's a good faith effort for-
For you guys
... this body to try to get our arms around it.
Totally.
You got a
first-hand exhibit of how
difficult it has been in working with the current
administration.
It's fair to say that
shenanigans are on full display here. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn. Alderman Fuentes, before we go to round two.
Alderman Fuentes?
Thank you, Chairwoman, for facilitating today's subject matter hearing.
I want to go back to your ownership of your subsidiary,
Omni.
And I would like some of the questions just to be answered yes or no if that's okay
with you.
Yeah, sure.
When you purchase
the owner of Omni, that's your subsidiary,
you were aware that Omni was conducting chartered flights for Homeland
Security since 2016?
I believe before that, but yes, I was.
Okay. And you are aware that under your ownership of Omni
that ICE
And transport of detainees has quadrupled under
your ownership
By us? I do not believe that fact to be accurate.
Are you aware that under your ownership, flights have become longer and
more cruel?
I cannot speak to the latter.
Okay.
Last fall, you had a flight
to
the continent of Asia, and individuals were shackled for up to
82 hours. Are you aware of that?
I have read the reporting on it. We have conducted every investigation into the
behavior
of our people on these planes.
We have discovered no evidence of wrongdoing or treatment outside
the guidelines, which certainly does not include that sort of thing.
Shackling for up to 82 hours is no wrongdoing?
No access to water
for over 12 hours is no wrongdoing?
Not allowing individuals to use the restroom and soiling themselves in transport,
that's no wrongdoing?
I struggle to answer the question, given we
have made constant
affirmative inquiry to ensure
that behavior outside the guidelines has not occurred.
We have found no evidence of that behavior.
And should we,
we would and will take immediate action.
What is your shackling guideline?
I was not on that plane, and so I cannot speak to what occurred.
What are your guidelines related to shackling?
I have no idea.
So how do you know they're not outside of your guidelines?
We are happy to follow up with the
specific,
I don't know, what would you even call it?
Any information that you like around our
operation
within the bounds,
and
our lack of known
mistreatment by any single Omni personnel of any
person
on any one of our flights.
Are you aware of the incident where individuals were on an Omni flight,
and they were asked to get off the flight in Colombia, a country
that they were not from, and agents in that flight teargassed and
pepper-sprayed the individuals on the flight so that they would get off, under your
ownership?
I would make two comments. One, I am not aware of that.
Two, we do not employ
the agents on these flights.
They are on your flight during transport, correct?
There are Department of Homeland Security
officers and employees on our planes. We fly them.
Okay. And you are not aware of the incident in which detainees were
pepper-sprayed and teargassed on your flight?
Ma'am, no.
You are aware that there are members of this council that are concerned of your
ownership of Omni, correct?
I could not be more aware.
And you did not come prepared today to answer questions around the
conditions, the dehumanization of detainees on a
charter flight that you own?
I cannot describe to you how many hours of investigation and interrogation
of the behaviors taken by our employees at Omni surrounding these flights-
Would you agree that if you are investigating, that there is
concern?
Yes.
Under
the conditions-
There should be concern
... people are living.
Yes, there should be concern.
I agree with that.
And these concerns exist under your ownership.
They do.
Look, I had a colleague who said we should roll out the red carpet
for you. I don't think you should be sitting here while you own Omni.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
I'm sorry, and I intend and hope that as you get to know me better,
I can change your mind.
Thank you, Alderman Fuentes. We're going to go to round
two. Before we go to round two, I would like to know
if
Stone Peak or any of its affiliates have any kind
of security violations or environmental
violations.
Not to
my awareness.
What would that be? I'm sorry.
Federal security violations.
Oh, no. Sorry. No.
No? Okay. Federal or state or local
environmental violations in
Illinois?
We can triple-check, but no.
All right.
I'm 99.98% sure.
Yes.
Sir, you mentioned-
Point of information.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The guidelines, is that your guidelines or federal
guidelines?
Look, we have performance and behavior and operational
standards that we develop and enforce
in conjunction with the... Gosh, I'd have to look at the
myriad different
regulatory and governing bodies, but including the FAA and all these sorts of-
Okay
... sorts of folks.
Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Starting off with round two.
We will do three minutes.
Yes. Okay. We'll take a recess for a bathroom break
for three minutes.
Five minutes?
Five minutes.
Five minutes is up.
Before we go to round two,
wanted to give
Alderman Martin an opportunity to ask his first round
set of questions.
Alderman.
Let me get the...
You have half of their team up here. Let's get the other half.
You have the main characters here.
Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us.
I want to focus my questions on this round about
an entity
named, I believe it is, TeleGuam Holdings.
I understand that Stone Peak
has some sort of financial relationship with them.
I don't know if it's ownership or just investment.
Is that an entity that rings a bell?
It does, yeah. We have
a minority non-control investment
in TeleGuam Holdings, which
to my recollection, and I'm happy to follow up with whatever information would be
helpful,
the wireless
service provider, and doesn't also operate the cable and station, do you remember?
In Guam.
Okay. Yeah.
It would be great through the chair to get some more information about exactly what
the nature of that relationship is.
Sure.
When it commenced, the amount of money that has been
transferred, the degree to which there is ownership, even if it's just minority.
Something that I came across is the fact that there were consumer fraud
related allegations involving TeleGuam,
specifically a settlement that they reached with the Department of Justice for
allegedly charging US military service members in Guam
illegal service cancellation fees upon
reassignment from Guam elsewhere.
Yeah.
So I haven't read the settlement agreement from top to bottom.
I don't know if they acknowledge any wrongdoing, but obviously,
it caught the attention of-
Yeah
... the Department of Justice. I'm curious-
Yeah
... if that's something that is on your radar at the moment.
Look, to my understanding, that wouldn't have occurred during the course of
ownership after our investment, although if it did, I apologize for not knowing.
If it did occur prior to our investment, I'm happy to pull up whatever diligence we
had that suggested either those personnel were terminated, that practices
and
protocols in place that allowed for that behavior had been updated, et cetera.
It's a totally fair question, and I will
work off line with you to give to whatever you want to know.
Alderman Martin, what's the name of the company again?
What do they do, and what was the harm? Just so I'm clear.
TeleGuam Holdings, LLC is the name of the entity.
They were alleged to have
charged
military service members in Guam illegal service cancellation
fees when those service members were
reassigned from Guam to another military assignment.
And so I believe that the settlement agreement that was entered into with the
Department of Justice involved a $500,000
payment.
Again, I don't know if there was any acknowledgment of wrongdoing.
It's an airline? Or-
No, it's a cell service provider.
Cell service.
That's right.
And then my other question, I wanted to follow up on something that Alderman
Lospata had mentioned at the outset in terms of liquefied natural
gas. Have there been any sanctions threatened or
imposed by any government entity in connection
with the
Sea Peak's transfer of liquefied natural gas?
So we are not directly subject to any sanctions.
And Sea Change specifically. Has Sea Change-
Sea Peak is
not directly subject to any sanctions.
We would love not to be doing that business,
but are not permitted by law
without
incurring enormous damages that accrue to the underlying pension holders that own
that asset to
conduct and determine voyage start and end
locations that would more closely align with our
perspectives on the crisis in Ukraine.
Can you, through the chair, share some more information about the
penalties, damages, other things that would be incurred if Sea Change
had decided not to transfer that liquefied natural gas?
I know I kind of put you on the spot.
I can definitely follow up. The summary is that they would be enormous.
And ultimately,
it's retirees, pensioners, et cetera, that own that business.
One point,
it's probably valued at, I don't know, anyway, several billion dollars investment
in that business.
We would not be disappointed
if
the European Union
drafted sanctions language that did not excuse
our movement of gas
to their countries.
Mm-hmm. Are there competitors in that space who, in theory, could
transport that liquefied natural gas?
Someone would need those vessels.
They're a specific class called Arc 7s, which is ice breaking, and it's up in
Siberia. Yeah.
So to your knowledge-
I mean, there are other vessels, but-
Is SeaChange the only entity that-
It is not
... has those?
No, there's a bunch of others, but we own it.
It's not
a commodity trade generally.
Okay. Those are all my questions for right now. Thank you, Chair.
Okay. Thank you, Alderman Martin.
Alderman Sichel Lopez, round two.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm
deeply troubled for both these
investments. But I do want to
focus on some of the timelines that you provided.
What was the timeline in terms of the bid?
I'm understanding for the ordinance to be submitted to the
council, you had to provide over 1,000 pages of
the bid, correct?
To the city.
So we bid in... Well, I mean, the whole process started in
what? March or something, Dennis, last year?
Yes.
Thereabouts.
Sure.
Roughly. Our final bid date was, James, what date, do you know?
November 20.
The final bid date was November 20th.
November 20. So-
We were notified that we went into contract
right around Christmas. I remember where I was.
December 30th.
December 30. And then-
Yeah. We had this run-out period while the city was bidding
that we allowed for, look, if the city wanted to own it and was going to be p****d
if we bought it, we didn't want to enter that situation. That's unfair.
And so we allowed the city that period of time to pursue its own bid.
The day that expired, we reached out to the city.
Okay. So the day that
expired then you officially bid. And
then when did you submit the information?
For us to
be able to have the ordinance ready for the city council, you had to
provide all the information
that you bid.
So we submitted substantial incidents-
When did that
transmission happen for us to be able...
Because ultimately-
So I cannot speak to your receipt of it. I can only speak to our... Yeah.
Yeah. So let me just give you some context.
Our bid, our final bid, like I said, was in November, and then we
signed the transaction December 30th.
We were made aware that the city wanted to pursue a bid.
And to James Wiper's point, we wanted to allow the city the time
to run that analysis and try to bid if they wanted to own it.
By January 27th, we knew that the city
was going to not pursue the bid, and we started talking to them, and the
city requested that we file and receive HSR
approval prior to any formal engagement with the city.
This is when we started to try to reach out to city council members and to members
of the city.
What-
We were not allowed to at that moment.
Got it. So when do you start reaching out to the mayor's office versus the city
council members? When did that happen?
The legal department of the mayor's office started engaging with us in late
January, when we were made aware that they were planning
on not going through with the bid for the asset.
The city, the mayor's department, formally
resigned their bid on January
30th.
And then-
So we were made aware that they would not bid anymore on January 30th.
Right. You made the bid.
Yeah.
You had to submit the paperwork to the city. When did that happen?
Yes.
So please, be clear. Just walk me through the final, because...
And then two things. Walk me through the timeline-
Yeah
... until you submitted that to the
mayor's office-
Yeah
... then city council. When do you engage mayor, city council, and then
finally, who makes the decision on this?
Does the city council, who makes the decision on
approving or not this deal?
So let me walk through the full timeline.
So I'll start from the top, and sorry to be repetitive, I know we're low on time.
So January 27th, we start
hearing from the city's legal department because they're planning
on not bidding for the asset anymore.
They notify us on January 27th that we have to
file for and receive HSR approval in order to meet the
legality prong in the concession agreement.
So we started preparing for that internally at Stone Peak.
Meanwhile, I just want to make it known that we were making ourselves
fully available to city council and the mayor's office, and
we were asked not to engage with any city
council members
on-
Point of clarification, Alderman Quinn.
Who said you should not engage?
The city's legal department.
Okay.
So-
But Aldermans...
Point of information, Alderman Lopez.
Specifically, who?
I'm not going to verbalize who specifically at this-
Is that a confidential
notice not to say who?
No, that's not confidential. I guess what I'm trying to say is-
Then if you could provide us who-
... I know who communicated it to us.
I'm not sure who directed that person to communicate it to us.
So I don't want to place blame on any one person.
The answer we will accept here today is the law department.
Yep.
And we will keep it moving. Alderman Sichel Lopez.
So to finish the timeline, on February 9th of
2026, Stone Peak filed our HSR
paperwork. On March 6th, we
received the HSR approval.
According to the city's legal department at this time, we
were now allowed to submit our change of
control paperwork to the city's law department.
This is the paperwork that starts that 45 plus 15-day
clock that we were talking about
So
Point of clarification, Alderman Quinn
So on March 6th,
Stone Peak is under the assumption the City of Chicago
approved whatever it is that you turned in?
No. So, we filed an HSR, a
non-competitive filing,
in order to meet the prong in the concession agreement
that says we meet all of the legal obligations in order to submit our
change of control paperwork.
And that was given to us.
We got the approval on March 6th.
So that's an approval by the City of Chicago?
That's an approval by Arthur Dallas Scott approval.
That's an
FPC approval.
Okay.
Yeah.
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Are you done with the timeline?
No, I'm not. There's a lot of steps.
Because I think the timeline, because I think Councilmember-
No, I just want-
Who decides? Okay
... to direct the questions back to you. I think Alderman Quinn.
Thank you.
All right. So March 6, we get HSR approval.
On March 12th,
Stone Peak submitted our official change of control
documentation to the mayor's law department.
That started, per the concession agreement, a 45-plus
15-day clock,
which would cause that May 11th
response, per the concession agreement.
I'd want to note that we continued to push to meet with City Council members
and the CFO, other members of the mayor's
office, to talk about Stone Peak, to let them know
who we are. We made multiple presentations for the city,
and it was not until April 8th that we received
the first invitation to meet with members
of the mayor's department in the City of Chicago.
James Wiper, Rob, and myself traveled to the City of Chicago.
We provided information at this meeting about Stone Peak,
with the intention that it would get to City Council members and anyone who
needed the appropriate information.
On April 15th, we filed
a massive amount of paperwork, called our economic disclosure statements,
to allow for the city to continue evaluating the deal.
On April 16th, we mailed to the city multiple
information that we got from the mayor's department.
We were asked to provide Stone Peak's portfolio companies in Chicago.
We were asked to provide our qualifications as a buyer.
We were asked to provide ideas that we had to help the city manage this
true-up payment.
We were asked to provide potential press strategy,
Q&A, and a recommended timeline. So we
prepared a lot of information in this regard.
We were also asked to provide information about LAZ, of which we prepared a
presentation and sent via mail the presentation on LAZ.
On April 30th, we mailed more
information requested by the mayor's office
on a description of the true-up payment mechanics, a very detailed
presentation which we are happy to make available to all of you, as all this
information that we had provided that I personally spent many of
my long nights making myself for you guys to
make it easy to understand and as informative as possible.
I personally want you all to see it because I spent time on it.
Go ahead.
Point of information, Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you, Chairwoman, for letting me have point of information.
For all that information, if you could send to the chair, including attendees.
Sure.
Make it a formal ask.
For sure. We have a-
I want to add to that request. The
suggestions for
true-up payment modifications perhaps, and
would love to see that as well.
Mm-hmm.
Anything that was provided
to the administration that we did not receive here
that is part of your
documentation for all of us to see as we consider
this transaction, I would like to see that through the chair.
Alderman Lopez for a point of clarification.
Yep. So
if I may, with a point of clarification then, when I asked
earlier what was proposed by the city to amend this as
other amendments, I was told nothing.
So now we're saying that there was a list of things and changes?
It's not an amendment to the mechanism or the concession.
It would be
a suggestion on how to better administer the concession agreement.
Ideas generated by them, not generated by you.
But they were passed to the law department.
They were.
Yes.
So when I said
if we had any ideas on how to make this more manageable, our law department
said no.
Right, because it was their ideas, not-
We had what we were in recei-
... this department's ideas. Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Go ahead.
So,
that was April 30th. So just to reiterate, April 30th, we
provided this presentation that described the exact
mechanics of how the true-up presentation works.
And we provided recommendations in that presentation
of how we, as a new owner, could help the city manage that
true-up payment, hopefully with the intention that no true-up
payment needs to exist at all with the proper management.
And I'll move off this. It became clear to us that there was
not a clear description or communication,
who that fault is unsure, of where the true-up payment
was at any amount of time, what the system and service percentage was at any amount
of time, and what amount was due at any amount of time.
We want to be a lot more transparent about that specific fact
pattern on a quarterly basis as the true-up payment, per the concession
agreement, is due on a quarterly basis.
Moving to May 7th
We were requested by
the mayor's office to aggregate all of
the presentations and information that we had presented
thus far, starting from that initial
April meeting.
We made a Word document, a memo,
that includes all the information about Stone Peak, Truist presentation,
our portfolio companies, et cetera, that were contained in all of the prior
presentations. We can make that available.
And then on May 20th is when the
official ordinance was introduced to city
council. That was obviously past that May 11th initial date,
when there was an extension made to June 30th.
Alderman, so just two quick follow-ups, so that I'm
clear. So by May 20th is when you submitted the
memo with the information, then they will later
be given to city council for the ordinance. Is that correct?
We submitted the memo on May 7th with the
intention that it gets to city council to inform
you all of who we are, what we do, and what our intentions are with the system
ahead of a May 20th ordinance introduction.
Our initial hope was that the ordinance would
actually be introduced the month before.
But as a team, we obviously understand it's a lot of
information to process.
Talking about an entirely new firm is a lot.
So we said, "Okay, let's extend it a month." And we wanted to
prepare one memo that went through all the
presentations to make it easy for everyone to
understand ahead of a May 20th
ordinance. We have recently
found out, semi-recently, that the information must have not gotten to city
council as we intended and have been working hard to do.
So, Madam Chair, just point of clarification, if we can,
between that date to when that actually was transmitted to
the city council, maybe we can see when was that information
provided?
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I was-
Yeah, I'm sorry. Based on the timeline that
they have provided, I want to know, because they said that they submitted
everything by May 7th, when was that transmitted to the city
council members?
None of that has been transmitted to the city council members.
So that's why I want to be clear.
Yeah. Not to interrupt you. We found out that the reason it wasn't being
transmitted is because of this NDA issue, and
we have been working actively to waive that
as quickly as possible so you all can get this information in order
to prepare yourselves for the deal.
CPM provided an initial waiver on June 12th.
We were told that that was not specific enough,
and by June 18th, we had attempted to waive
everything so all information could be shared
as we initially intended.
Just to be clear, we
believe that the NDA did not allow
even the city council to see all the information that was available.
We clarified on a June 12th and June 18th letter
that we believe that that's exactly what should have happened,
is that we clarified that we believe all the information should be shared
with city council.
And that NDA was signed by your company
as well? Can you just give me information about the NDA?
It's a mutual-
It's a mutual NDA.
Yeah.
So for instance, I really can't talk about anything in regard
to the city's bid,
but we've waived everything so the city could...
I shouldn't say we waived everything.
We clarified everything because we didn't feel that a waiver was necessary.
Knowing that, and I just want to be clear for the record, that this body
ultimately decides on this agreement.
We thought you all had everything and were entitled to everything the whole time.
Everything that you have received through the finance committee
on this deal
is a result of questions that were raised by
the aldermen in this body, in addition to
information that we got, memos, for example, from the law
department, right? So everything that you have has come in
that way.
That way.
Thank you.
And I apologize for maybe not having interrogated that further.
We were under the deep understanding that...
I apologize for not having directly clarified that further.
This is predominantly, I apologize to Chairman Dowell,
but to all of you as well.
We were and remain under the interpretation
that all this information
should have been, and is able to be disclosed to this entire group,
and it was our assumption, now wrongly, that's become clear,
that it was not. And so at every
opportunity to make that clarification, to get information across,
we've tried to do so.
And it disappoints me for you all
that all this stuff that you need and should have to be
informed about us, your partner, frankly, whether or not relevant
to the decision at all,
but that we wanted you to have, you didn't for quite a long period of time.
Thank you. Alderman, are you, too, Alderman?
No, I just, I would appreciate you give us a true up cost, too.
Yes, I want to see
that memo that you spent many hours on,
Mr. Hurd.
Oh, I want you to see it, too.
Just through the chair, before we move on.
You had said you'd met twice with the City of Chicago in person?
If you could-
We met once with the City of Chicago in person, and then was in
regular dialogue on a weekly basis, being asked to procure this
information, and under very short timelines, and
mail it. And I would want to iterate that every single
time we sent something, we made a new request to meet
with City Council and were told no.
And who was that, that told you no?
That is,
they said-
We received that notice from the law department.
It's a fair question.
I think the department is a fair question.
I don't think the person is a fair question in this public forum.
I was having personal phone discussions with Steven Maurer, being
told that they would-
So it's the chief financial officer
... that they would tell us when we could...
Let me be more clear. I was told by Steven Maurer that
he would reach out with an organization plan
onto when Stone Peak could meet with City Council, and for us not
to make direct contact.
Okay.
And so we had been waiting
to receive a plan to meet with City Council to
talk through the information that we had procured for you all, that we thought
you already had,
until it became obvious to us more recently that that was not happening,
and we took it upon ourselves with the help of Pat Dowell, Chairman Dowell,
to start answering questions that you all have via the
multiple Q&A requests we've received over the last couple of weeks.
So the chief financial officer. Okay.
Madam Chair, back to the request.
If you could include
in that in-person meeting, April 15th, all of the members of the City of
Chicago, because you've been saying the City of Chicago, all of their names through
the chair. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Quinn. Alderman Lopez, followed by Alderman
Vasquez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon members of the committee.
I just wish to touch on two topics, because we've covered quite a bit.
First, with regards to some of the issues that some of my
Latino brethren have brought up.
We've had multiple opportunities to address whether
or not we allow vendors to deal with the federal government.
2019 I brought this up, different group of aldermen.
I think even the Chair of Health and Human Relations brought this up in
2025. We have multiple contracts, starting with Motorola,
Standard Parking, Invisio Communications, CW Government, and others,
all who have contracts with us and contracts with Immigration and Customs
Enforcement. So I think if we're serious about doing something,
do something.
Second,
I'm glad that we're going to get through the chair, if I'm understanding this
complete timeline with all of its participants.
But I also just want to say this on the record,
and you all can take a deep breath because it's not about any of you up there.
I am extremely and exceedingly troubled
by the actions of this administration and this law department,
our law department.
Because I feel as though that they have, to some degree,
been intentionally trying to mislead us-
Alderman Lopez
... in a way where... Excuse me, Chairman.
Alderman Lopez.
In a way that I feel-
Get the question, questions.
Okay. If you want me to ask it as a question, then-
Questions to this body, to this team.
Sure. Well, I'm going to actually direct my question back to the
law department.
Because
Section 1-22
of the municipal code, which I've referenced before other
departments, and now sadly I have to due to our own Department of Law,
specifically references making false claims.
Do you think that as defined by the municipal code where
it says that if you act in deliberate ignorance of the
truth or falsity of information, or with reckless
disregard for the truth or falsity of information,
regardless if there's specific intent to defraud, do you
feel that by not sharing the totality and
scope of the information with regards to this sale, that
representatives of the, quote unquote, "law department" are in
violation of the law?
No, I do not.
And why is that?
Because I'd like to clarify, if I might,
the timeline that Mr. Hurt presented from his perspective,
and give you some more information that is not legal advice.
Because, again, in a public forum,
my obligation as your lawyer, if you'd like me to finish,
is to protect the city
from potential liability in the future.
And therefore, legal advice should be given in a non-public
forum that preserves attorney-client privilege.
Understood.
All right?
Understood. But if I may, because I'm not concerned about their timeline, I'm
concerned about how the department has carried itself.
And the question that I have is that when you are in--
You as a department, allow me to clarify.
When you as a department are refusing to share
information with your client, which you just said earlier today we are your
client, then you are, whether
directly or indirectly, in my opinion,
you are misleading
this body by not fully disclosing everything that we are
legally obligated to be able to have access to.
And that, Madam Chairman, is very concerning to me, because that is something that
we've seen time and time again across multiple departments from this
administration, and we should be able to turn to our experts,
regardless of the department, and have full faith that what they're telling us is
true and accurate and responsible to the needs of this body.
Thank you.
Excuse me. You're making an assumption in your statement
that everything that may have been provided to the f- Department of Finance or to
the mayor's office was provided to the law department.
That is one of your assumptions in what you just said.
Yes.
That is an assumption that may be inaccurate.
So it is not-
We're not going to have a back and forth on this-
So unless the-
... Alderman Lopez.
Unless the corporation council, is it the head lawyer?
Have a back and forth on this, Alderman Lopez.
Well, I-
You made your point.
Attorney McDonald, I understand that
you want to clarify the timeline from your perspective so that we
have a perspective that may be different from the one that we
heard.
I might say it might supplement from our point of view.
We were notified
by,
again, the city does not, as you know, directly have a
legal relationship with Stone Peak.
They want to be the buyer
of CPM.
The city has a concession agreement, a legal relationship with Chicago
Parking Meters. Just to keep...
So we were notified by the lawyers
of Chicago Parking Meters that since the city
wasn't pursuing a bid,
they were going to pursue a bid
purchase with a new bidder,
which was Stone Peak. That was told to us back on February 10th of this year.
There was a discussion
about whether or not
the city
should start the legislative process, which under Section
15 of the 2008 ordinance, had to be done for this approval.
Should the city start that
while there was still a federal approval pending?
We understood that the Federal Trade Commission had to
look at this proposed sale and determine whether or not it would
have any competitive effect and potentially turn it
down or potentially require changes to it.
We did not know how long that might take.
Mm-hmm.
And if the Federal Trade Commission
approved it, it might not take very long.
As Mr. Hurd has alluded to,
one of the provisions in Section 17 (1) of the concession
agreement says in considering an approval,
we have to determine whether or not such a transfer,
in this case, a new owner of CPM, would be in violation
of law.
Law includes federal law. So we
told CPM
not to pursue the formal request for
approval
until after we knew that the Federal Trade
Commission had approved it, if they were.
If they were not going to approve it, there would be no reason for the
city to even consider it, because it would be in violation of
federal law. And if-
But you don't dispute any of the dates that have been presented
by this team, right?
In terms of meetings that Stone Peak may have had with the mayor's
office
or the Department of Finance,
I defer to-
You can't speak to.
I can't speak to those.
Okay.
I was not at those meetings.
Mr. Weiss, please.
I would like to make one point of clarification, and I note that this is not legal
advice, but just for the benefit of the council.
HSR is an anti-competitive review.
It is designed to ensure
that
we owning one business are not acquiring another business that would
create anti-competitive issues.
As
has been pointed out on numerous occasions, and is a reasonable point, we do not
own any other parking meters.
I have acquired dozens more businesses.
In every instance where we do not have another footprint and we are
confident in HSR review, we have made a public press release on
the day of signing.
We were confused about that approach.
Nonetheless, we at that point believed we were operating in good faith.
And so we're happy enough to abide the strict letter,
which suggested
there needed to be
an understanding and ultimately
proof that we were in violation of no federal law or antitrust or
regulatory
breach.
But as a practical matter, that is extremely...
We even at the time viewed that as an odd approach.
Right. Thank you. Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much.
Bye, Alderman Lee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think
I want to echo some of my colleagues, and I'll keep it brief.
Here's the thing that's concerning me, and I think other members of this council,
and it's related to what the Johnson administration has been doing in operating in
this manner.
All the information we're getting about the meetings that were occurring that we
were not a part of leads to what I believe are only two
conclusions. Either one, the administration had a lack of
forethought in communicating with us, knowing that at some point we would have to
be the ones to approve the conversation or the agreement.
Or two, they were intentionally keeping it from us, so we weren't getting this
information until they decided to do so. So it's either incompetent or dishonest.
Both are a problem for the city of Chicago, and that's why-
Any questions for this team?
Absolutely. It's warming it up.
Okay.
One-
You're warmed up. You've been warmed up.
Thank you. Yeah. So here's another question
for you all that I'll get to. One, we need an independent counsel because this is
clearly a problem. So just want to make sure as we have that in committee,
we all vote on a thing to actually give us the tools to engage, because this is a
problem for a deal this bad. It was bad the first time.
We don't want to duplicate it. So-
For clarity, because I asked earlier in a point of clarification, the reason why I
want a dollar amount related to the revenue you anticipate is because some
level you calculated what I anticipate are diminishing returns going
into decades of however behavior might be, which led to
whatever your bid was. And I'd like to get a comparison at some point of why the
city thought a billion dollars more made sense in their calculations.
Doing a-
To be clear, I'll send you the exact model we sent to Fitch.
Yeah
Get it in your inbox.
And the difference why I ask for a dollar amount is annual percentage return
doesn't really do it justice as far as the millions and billions of dollars we're
talking about here.
I'd like, through the chair, a list of any lawsuits that have
been claimed or initiated against you all over the past 10
years. Would you be able to supply that?
I think we-
Is it in there? How long does it go back?
We have provided that information.
I don't know that it goes back 10 years, but-
At least five. It's five
... it is at least five to six.
It's five. At least for five we sent. Yeah, whatever. Yeah.
I'd like to go back 10, if that's okay. If we can go another five.
Pre-COVID, if you will.
Thank you for that.
I needed clarity. Okay.
Were there any conversations, and this is for either CPM or Stone Peak, related to
opportunities to actually grow revenue for the city?
So for example, any ancillary forms of income.
If you all built the infrastructure for EV charging,
for example, and then the city being able to take the lion's share of some of that
revenue, which wouldn't impede on the revenue you're getting or potentially kiosks
to do city stickers or anything or
cameras for bike lane.
Dude, that is the best thing possible.
Huh?
We would love that. Yeah, we have a whole deck about which we've shared, and we'll
make available to you. That's fantastic.
And was that part of any, those ideas part of any of the
information that you shared with the city?
Yeah.
We talk about
potential plan. Our view is that we're coming into the asset as it
stands today, but there's so much we can do together.
EV charging, any sort of pricing mechanism sharing,
anything incremental we can do to add to the system, you guys need
to approve it via the concession agreement.
Yeah.
It's in your hands, right? And so our idea is to bring things
to you and work collaboratively. How do we benefit your wards?
How does it work for us? How does it work for you? What's the sharing?
Anything that we can layer on top that's beneficial to the both of
us, that's part of the engagement we want to have.
So any ideas that you all have discussed internally or
such, we would love, through the chair, to get ideas of not just community
partnership, right? How do you invest in different neighborhoods?
They already agreed to do that, to send that to us.
The whole list of all ideas they've got?
Yeah, they just did.
Both parties?
We're happy to.
Ultimately, the way we see it is
we are partnered
to make best use of the curb.
Yeah. Like I said,
given the existing agreement, I'm trying to figure out what outside of that we
could potentially find that might make sense.
As well as if there's an interest in getting revenue
up front rather than credits on the long run if it's over 100%.
So just those kind of ideas are helpful.
Yeah. I
do think these things are best developed in conversation.
The most obvious one, of course, is how do we better...
The two big things, EV charging and autonomous vehicle
use cases as it relates to that curb.
Yeah.
These things are evolving. I don't know what would be most
helpful to the folks that live in your ward.
And it may not be the same in every ward.
The CBD may want to work differently than the more residential neighborhoods than
the more industrial.
Yeah, there's-
And we have the ability to have that dialogue and do it differently in different
places and for different people.
We don't know the answer on those topics. It's evolving rapidly.
These are long-term capital decisions.
To the extent you have not had that opportunity to have those discussions with the
prior ownership group, that disappoints me.
I think one of the things we view as the biggest upside,
both financial but just also relational, is to have those
conversations and find other ways.
Right now, the only way we are getting paid and you are getting paid, and there's
net back, is to park.
Yeah.
But it's a very valuable space.
There's a myriad of side. In order to get everyone's ideas, I think that's the
interest of the question. I think, for an example, we've been trying to get a bike
lane violation camera system piloted for about four or five years
now that I think private industry could easily go, "Yeah, we can put a camera on
these things," and automatically lead to ticketing.
The fact that we wait this long due to bureaucracy of government, there might be
some level of conversation. That being said,
till you guys get rid of Omni, I don't want to talk, but there's opportunity after
that. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Vasquez. Always the
man with the ideas or with some ideas that
are different.
Alderman Lee, followed by Alderman O'Shea, followed by
Alderman Nugent.
I just got one follow-up question.
I know the representatives from Stone Peak were out
laying out their communication with the city
prior to the council's knowledge.
Can you tell me who your contacts are in the mayor's office that you've been
communicating with?
So it's been originally Jason Lee,
Chip, Stephen Marr in that first meeting and leading up to that first
meeting. After that meeting, it was myself and Stephen Marr.
Okay. That's all I've got, Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lee. Alderman O'Shea.
Thank you, Chairman.
When we talk about those individuals you just mentioned, can you give
dates of when those meetings were?
The reason I ask that is that-
Alderman O'Shea, not to cut you off.
They said that they would, through the chair, give us the
dates of those meetings and who was in those meetings.
The reason I bring that up, Chairman, is
Jill Jaworski was our CFO into the month of January,
which is when these discussions between the mayor's office and these guys were
taking place. Steven Maher did not become the
acting CFO until the month of February.
In fact, he's still the interim, ladies and gentlemen.
I would ask that we call upstairs and we get the acting
CFO to come down here.
And if he doesn't want to come down here, I would ask that we have
his confirmation hearing,
because if any of you here are willing to support him as the
chief financial officer-
Um
... with this clown car of situational-
Alderman O'Shea, I'm going to ask you to get off
that soapbox for a minute,
and direct your questions to
this body here related to what's before
us for consideration. Thank you. Alderman Vasquez,
this is for you.
Yes, I'm sending you to the principal's office.
Were there
ever any aldermen
present
in any of these meetings with you, anybody from the Chicago City Council?
No, and we wanted to meet with aldermen, but we were not allowed
access to them.
I would ask that we get Steven Maher down here.
I'm done.
Thank you, Alderman O'Shea. Alderman Nugent to close.
Oh, thanks, Chair.
I think it's Rob that went through the timeline up there.
You had mentioned, somewhere between January 27th and
March 6th, you were told not to engage with council
by our legal department.
Was there a reason given to you why you shouldn't engage with us?
Yes, the reason was that they were telling us
that they wanted to
package the information that we were giving them
in a way that was
effective and helpful to city
council. We were told that they wanted to control the narrative of
the deal to city council. At the time,
we were of the opinion that we're both trying to
achieve a mutually beneficial amongst
city council, the mayor's office, us messaging, which was
obviously not the case.
But we were told not to interfere with that messaging
using the information we were giving them.
Well, I will add a little bit of more color from my perspective at least, which
is
obviously the way that it has all played out has been the worst
possible way.
Yeah.
You all have not been informed adequately.
It has become incredibly public. There have been nasty
things said about me, which my husband has to read on the front page of the paper.
Welcome to our world.
Of course.
I didn't see those.
But I'm sorry for that for you.
And
our hope, this is obviously an asset that has
been controversial
for quite some period of time. The original
transaction
we don't need to debate here, but I think there's general consensus
as to how that played out for the city.
Our hope was that we would be able to, in tight coordination
with our counterparts at the city who we believed were all
working and rowing in the same direction at that point in time,
allow you all to avoid the very sort of
publicity
and scrutiny,
and candidly time suck,
that you've all found yourselves in today, that we have found ourselves in today,
that the city has found themselves in today.
So that's why when we say control the narrative, it's really
like
we're trying to buy a parking meter. We didn't want you to take some heat.
It's a deal that's existed. Someone's operating it yesterday.
Someone will operate it tomorrow. It'll be me, or it'll be someone else.
And, I'm personally disappointed and
apologize on your all's behalf that we've created a situation in which nobody
wins.
Yeah, thank you.
To Jim McDonald, was it your advice as our
counsel to the folks in the box
n-not to have them engage with us?
I have not communicated with Stone Peak.
We don't have a legal relationship with them.
I have been talking to CPM's lawyers.
I did not, to my recollection, and I'm doing this from memory,
did not tell them anything about
not having Stone Peak.
You didn't, Jim. I'll let you off the hook on that.
But I did tell them, as I said before, that I didn't think
it would be appropriate, that it would make sense to ask the city, including
the city council, to start on an approval process when we
did not know whether or not the Federal Trade Commission would be signing off.
Would there be other lawyers in the city that would potentially be working
with the folks in the box, advising them on
how they should engage with us independent of you?
It's not likely. I'd have to ask.
I'm the one that's been working on the transaction, so people would go to me
normally.
Okay.
Do you have any questions?
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Actually, no. I have one more question.
And I keep going back to this because I think that it's just so unprecedented
right now that,
Jim, you're obviously a respected lawyer that many of us have worked
with. You have a role in this.
We as council now have counsel through Jones Day.
We had a member from the Department of Law sit in a briefing with us the other
day, and he told us he was unable to speak to us or
answer any questions. And so
I keep going back
to the interplay and relationship of counsel here.
There's Jones Day, there's the Department of Law, there's corporation
counsel, there's you. And
I
remain
particularly confused with respect to the level of
representation, the walls surrounding the representation,
the use of the term privilege, and
not only the use but I believe the excuse of the word privilege
when people don't want to answer our questions.
And
I think I'm trying to get after is
help us understand
who's representing who, the interplay, and when a conflict or if we're in a
conflict,
whose position ultimately prevails.
I understand what's been said already today is
that CPM and Stone Peak, presumably
with them, would be willing to waive
any provision that we thought resulted in ambiguity about the
confidentiality letter agreement.
We had proposed language earlier that was not accepted.
We'd be happy to work with CPM's lawyers because it's
CPM that has the benefit of it, of the confidentiality letter agreement,
so that any of that ambiguity could be resolved,
and we could provide everything
without worrying about any kind of later concern
about CPM as the bearer of the
confidentiality
agreement on the city's part could later bring against us.
And so I'd be happy to work with them to resolve that so
that you wouldn't continue to get this kind of, "We
can't really talk to you about it because there's ambiguity, and we're
concerned about possible liability in the future,
and so we
just simply can't."
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Nugen. I see our budget chair's
returned. Alderman Chairman Ervin.
Thank you. I figured I'd get back in time.
But thank you, guys. It sounds like you guys have had a spirited and
raucous conversation around this.
There's a couple of points that I think
we got to bring back. Number one,
I know there's been conversation around what the executive branch
did as it relates to putting a bid into that, which
subsequently was unsuccessful. At what point
did
the matter become known to the City of
Chicago that, A, that
we, as the City of Chicago being a purchaser, was no longer in the running
and/or, and B,
the fact that the
seller is selling to a different entity that would
require our participation for as far
as the language is under the change of control?
See, that's what happens when you come back late.
Oh, my bad. Have we figured that out?
Went through the timeline.
Oh, you went through the timeline. Okay.
Did y'all-
Just through the timeline from November.
Okay. I apologize.
So,
what I would ask is that the timeline that was
presented here, if we could get that in writing so that we
can share that to all members of the City
Council.
Okay. If you've answered that, I-
That was answered.
No worries then. I'll get that from our
recorder and see where we land with that.
And it sound like you guys are going to put it in a memo form.
And this back and forth as it relates to who's representing
who, I think it's clear
and apparent that from conversations that
the council feels as if we need some level
of representation because when we have conversations and the
answer is that, "I can't tell you that," and you're supposed to be representing me,
that's a challenge. And I think it's a challenge to all of us.
And, I know that Jones Day has been assigned as special counsel to us,
and I've had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Rotatori.
I hope that everybody in this body avails himself of the counsel
of Jones Day as they have been privy and part of this
transaction dating back some years, so that we, as a council, can get
some understanding of what our abilities are, what we need to do,
what we can and cannot do, so that either we have to make a
decision as it relates to this particular agreement.
And so I know that Mr. Rotatori is well-versed in this,
so that he can help give us the necessary guidance as well as
legal counsel as it relates to our roles and responsibility as a
body. So I hope that everyone has had their questions answered so
that ultimately we have to make a decision as
a body and
do something that hopefully is meaningful to
our constituencies and meaningful for the taxpayers of the City of
Chicago. So, outside of that, Madam Chair,
sound like you guys have answered everything. Can I get a one-on-one?
Well, you have to wait till I adjourn.
You have to wait till you adjourn?
What I want to say, I'm not ready yet.
Okay.
I will be in a second.
First I want to thank the representatives from Stone
Peak and CPM for being here today. I want
to thank Jim McDonald also and Chip Hastings
for
being with us this morning and afternoon.
I will say that I think that this has been a very enlightening hearing,
not just on the
proposed agreement or the proposed transfer, but
also on the process. And,
I'm heartened that there seems to be an openness
to talk about how we can make this
agreement better for the City of Chicago, better for the taxpayers of
the City of Chicago, and that this
conversation will continue
now that we know who you are and we have
access to you.
So with that, I will ask for a motion to adjourn.
So moved by Alderman Waguespack. All
those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the Committee on
Finances adjourned.