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 six inches by 12 are
permitted and subject to search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace, pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated,
and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere
with the ability of other individuals to view or hear the
proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to
adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the
remainder of the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances, are not permitted when, in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety 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 six inches by
12 are permitted and subject to search.
And five, firearms, ammunition, fireworks,
laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace, pepper
spray, and toy weapons. Cell phones and other small
handheld recording devices must be placed in silent mode,
can only be used while seated, and can only be used in a
manner that does not interfere with the ability of other
individuals to view or hear the proceedings.
Individuals or groups failing to adhere to these
rules will be subject to removal from the remainder of the
meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon
request. Individuals must remain seated at all
times except, one, when entering or exiting the
gallery. Two, when providing public comment during the
portion of a meeting set aside for that purpose.
Or three, when asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member
of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive,
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances, are not permitted when, in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety 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 six inches by 12 are
permitted and subject to search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns,
tasers, mace, pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode. Can only be used while seated
and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere
with the ability of other individuals to view or hear the
proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to
adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the
remainder of the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose. Or three, when asked
to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety 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 six inches by 12 are
permitted and subject to search. And five, firearms,
ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun
guns, tasers, mace, pepper spray, and toy weapons.
Cell phones and other small handheld recording devices must be
placed in silent mode, can only be used while seated,
and can only be used in a manner that does not interfere
with the ability of other individuals to view or hear the
proceedings. Individuals or groups failing to
adhere to these rules will be subject to removal from the
remainder of the meeting by the Sergeant at Arms.
City of Chicago City Council Rules of Conduct for Public
Meetings, 2023 to 2027.
Pursuant to Rule 58 of the Chicago City Council Rules of
Order and Procedure, the Sergeant at Arms sets forth the
following rules of conduct for members of the public.
These rules shall be in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or room is open for a meeting of the City Council
or any of its committees. All individuals and their
belongings are subject to search at entry or upon request.
Individuals must remain seated at all times except,
one, when entering or exiting the gallery.
Two, when providing public comment during the portion of a meeting
set aside for that purpose. Or three, when asked
to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive
or defamatory behavior or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms may
lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct
of the meeting, is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting
actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms,
throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting,
or other loud utterances are not permitted when in the judgment of the
meeting's chair or the Sergeant at Arms, such actions are
disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety 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-
Good morning, everyone.
Morning. Happy Monday.
The Committee on Finance is called to order
Today, we will be holding a TEFRA hearing
for the Levy House redevelopment project, for which the city will
issue multifamily housing debt. We'll now have a roll
call to establish quorum.
Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Lospada.
Here.
Alderman Hopkins. Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris. Alderman Beale.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez. Alderman Quinn.
Here.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez. Alderman
Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Tally Farrell.
Alderman Cardona. Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley.
Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell is here.
We have a quorum. We have 19.
Alderman Curtis, Alderman Taylor, Alderman Rodriguez,
Alderman Scott, Mitts, Knudsen, and Martin have
requested remote participation for reasons under the
provisions of Rule 59. Can I have a motion to
allow these aldermen
to participate in today's meeting?
So moved by Alderman Villegas. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed.
Noted, Alderman Sposato. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and I
want to confirm, Alderman Curtis.
Present. Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Here.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Mitts.
Alderman Knudsen.
Here.
And Alderman Martin.
Present.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez has requested
remote
participation because of Rule 59.
Can I allow this alderman in, Alderman Harris?
So moved. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
All right, moving on.
Let the
record
reflect that this is a public hearing that is being held pursuant to the
requirements of Section 147F of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Notice of this public hearing was published on the July 6th,
2026 website of the Office of the City
Clerk of the City of Chicago. Let the reporter mark
the screenshot of such notice as committee exhibit number one
for identification.
This is a hearing regarding a plan to finance to issue the
multifamily housing revenue note, series
2026, for the Levy House redevelopment project, in a
principal amount not to exceed $15 million.
We'll refer to this as the note. The proceeds
of the note will be used by Levy House Preservation
Associates Limited Partnership, an Illinois limited
partnership, we will refer to them as the borrower, to
finance an affordable housing development project by
acquiring and rehabilitating a low-income,
multifamily housing development project, which we will
refer to as the project.
This project consists of, A, the acquisition and
rehabilitation of an eight-story building located
generally at 1221 West Sherwin Avenue,
we will refer to this as the building, which will contain
57 residential rental dwelling units, comprised
of 56
one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom unit.
And B, paying fees, expenses, and costs
incurred in the connection with the authorization,
issuance, and sale of the note.
Of the 57 residential rental units in this project, at
least 23 units will be held available to
households earning up to 60% of the area median
income.
The borrower will acquire the building from POA Levy
House LLC, and thereafter will own the
project. POA Levy House GP
LLC, an Illinois limited liability company,
serves as the general partner of the borrower.
The city will issue the note pursuant to its powers as a home
rule unit of government under the 1970 Constitution
of the State of Illinois, and an ordinance adopted by the City
Council of the city. The note will not be a general
obligation of the city, the State of Illinois, or any political
subdivision thereof, but will be a limited special
obligation of the city.
The principle of premium, if any, and interest on the
note will be payable solely out of the revenue of the
project and other funds pledged and assigned for the payment by
the borrower in accordance with the funding loan agreement under
which this note is issued.
The note will not constitute an indebtedness or an
obligation of the city, the State of Illinois, or any
political subdivision of the State of Illinois within the purview
of any constitutional limitation or legal
provision. No holder of the note will
have the right to compel
any exercise of the taxing power of the city, the
State of Illinois, the United States of America, or any political
subdivision of any of them to pay the principal of premium, if
any interest on the note.
Written comments related to the plan to issue the notes must have
been submitted by email to the Committee on Finance no
later than 1:00 PM, Friday, July 10th,
2026.
We have no written comments. No written
comments were submitted on the project, and we would like the record to reflect
that point.
Ladies and gentlemen, if any resident, taxpayer, or other interested
person attending this hearing desires an opportunity to
express their views for or against the proposed issuance of the
note, please do one of the following.
For those attending this hearing in person, please come to the
microphone in the aisle when your name is called, or for those who
have called in on the toll-free line, press
star nine on your phone to notify the host of the call-in number.
And once you are called upon to provide your comments, please enter
star six to unmute your phone. Each speaker will be
limited to two minutes.
We have two
members of the public that wish to make a statement with respect to this
matter. The first one we'll begin with is George
Blakemore.
Read.
Reading of multiple things and what-
Greetings, Mr. Blakemore.
What I heard you say, that the city would not be
indebted to pay that money
every time you have this. But it's coming through the city,
and that's why we have such a corrupt
government, all these Democrats, and the Republicans
too.
But, and I also heard you say
rule something,
that
some of these aldermen wouldn't have to be present.
I urge you citizens to say how many times did
you not come to these meetings? You're getting paid for these
meetings.
So reading is fundamental. Each one of y'all should read this
again.
Read. You heard our reading. And the multifamily unit,
and the minimum finance for
people that live in this area. Somebody's getting rich.
Who's financing this? How many Black banks are getting this
money? Or do
we even have a Black bank in the City of Chicago?
All about this finance. That's why it's very, very important
for me to come to these meetings.
I heard you say that some of these aldermen
wouldn't
Thank
you, Mr. Blakemore. Our next speaker is Peter
Lata.
Finance in Chicago is fraud. This
mayor gave over $100 million to
house, feed, and protect those who are not even
citizens of Chicago. This is utterly
disgusting. Don't take care of the countless homeless
veterans or Chicagoans that desperately need help, but
help those who we don't even know where they are from or even who they are,
with also including international criminals that are infiltrating our city
as well.
This mayor just signed a $3.2 billion
deal with parking meters,
but is hiding information from not only the City Council, but
Chicago as well.
And I want to thank all of the aldermen that voted no when
this joke that sits right over there
tries to pass to raise property taxes for
Chicago.
Ladies and gentlemen of City Council and throughout the nation
today, this is my stark warning.
People like Johnson and Pritzker are the problems of this
country. They are focused on pocketing for themselves,
and care about those that are harmful to our country.
It is happening in every major Democratic city
across America.
Seattle, San Francisco Los Angeles,
Minneapolis, New York City, Detroit, and now take
Chicago as a prime example. We need to turn
around. Chicago needs to change course
now. If we don't change, this city will be
doomed. It literally will be doomed.
It is unbelievable that we could sit here and talk about
finances.
Nothing's being done. It's only helping to a small amount of
people. Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the public hearing on the proposed
plan for the City of Chicago to issue
the not to exceed $15 million principal amount multifamily
housing revenue note series 2026 for the Levy House
redevelopment project. Let the record reflect that this
public hearing on this matter was concluded at
10:29 a.m., July
13th, 2026. This concludes the
TEFRA hearing.
I'd like to acknowledge Alderman Lospada, Alderman Mitchell,
and you as members of the finance committee, you'll be added to
quorum. And we also have with us Alderman Hadden, who
is a non-member. Thank you for your presence.
Is she in town?
Oh, thank you. Alderman
Knutson has joined us. He was rule 59, but he is
in person. Good to see you, Alderman.
And we will count you towards quorum. Is she ready?
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
The Committee on Finance is again called to order.
Today, we will be holding a TEFRA hearing, public hearing on the
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, general
airport, senior lien revenue and revenue refunding
bonds, series 2026 BCD,
which will be referred to throughout this hearing as the bonds.
We will now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Lospada.
Alderman Hopkins. Alderman Hall. Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris. Alderman Beale. Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez. Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez. Alderman Moore.
Alderman O'Shea.
Here.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez. Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin. Alderman Taliaferro.
Here.
Alderman Cardona. Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Quezada. Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Sposato.
Here.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley.
Present.
Alderman Knutson.
Present.
Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell is here.
Alderman Irvin's here.
Alderman Lee is here. Alderman Vasquez is here.
We have a quorum. We have 22 members present.
Alderman Curtis, Alderman Taylor, Alderman
Rodriguez, Alderman Scott, Alderman Mitts, Alderman
Martin, and Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez have requested
remote participation for reasons stated under provision of Rule
59. May I have a motion to allow these aldermen to participate?
So moved by Alderman Silverstein.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and we can
confirm Alderman Curtis, Taylor,
Rodriguez.
Here.
Mitts.
Here.
Rodriguez.
Here.
Rodriguez Sanchez,
our president, have joined the meeting.
Let the record reflect that this is a public hearing that is being held
pursuant to the requirements of Section
147F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended, and will be referred to throughout this hearing as the code.
Notice of this public hearing was published
on July 6th on the website of the Office of the City Clerk of the
City of Chicago. Throughout today's hearing, the City of Chicago
may be referred to simply as the city.
Let the reporter mark the screenshot of such a notice
as committee exhibit number one
for identification.
I will now ask Brendan White, Assistant Commissioner of the Department of
Finance, to explain the background for this hearing.
Good morning, Mr. White.
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman.
TEFRA stands for Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act, which is a federal law.
This hearing is required by this law to provide the public an opportunity to
comment on the plan of finance for certain kinds of tax-exempt bonds and
notes and the use of the proceeds of such bonds and notes.
Following the public hearing, the city must approve the plan of finance for the
issuance of bonds or notes before any of the tax-exempt
debt can be issued. Approval can be
by an ordinance adopted by city council or by a certificate signed by the mayor.
Thank you, Brendan. This is a hearing regarding the proposed plan
of finance to issue the bonds in a principal amount
not to exceed $4 billion $560
million. During the hearing, we may refer to the
Chicago O'Hare International Airport simply
as the airport or O'Hare. The airport is owned and
operated by the city. Pursuant to the plan of finance,
the proceeds of the
bond will be used for the following purpose.
A, the payment or the reimbursement for the payment of
all or a portion of the cost of acquiring, constructing,
and equipping certain capital projects, including
airport, the airfield, terminal concessions,
roadway and airport transit system facilities and improvements,
and other related facilities and improvements at or near the
airport, and the cost of providing sound insulation and
noise mitigation at schools and residences in
areas surrounding the airport, including, without limitation,
capital projects included in the O'Hare Terminal
Area Plan, the O'Hare Modernization Program, and the
O'Hare Capital Improvement Plan at the
airport.
B, the payment or refunding or
refinancing at or prior to maturity of
all or a portion of certain outstanding general airport revenue
bonds, special facility revenue bonds,
commercial paper notes, credit agreement notes, and/or
passenger facility charge revenue bonds issued for purposes of the
airport, which are collectively referred to as
outstanding airport obligations during the hearing.
C, undertaking one or more forward delivery
refundings of all or a portion of all or a
portion of certain outstanding airport obligations.
D, inviting owners of certain of its
outstanding airport obligations to tender such
outstanding airport obligations for purchase pursuant
to one or more invitations, and purchasing all or a
portion of such outstanding airport obligations
tended by the owner and accepted for the purchase by the city.
E, the deposit of monies into certain funds and accounts
to accomplish the purpose of the bonds, including deposits to
capitalize interest accounts for the bonds
and other senior lien obligations under the master trust
indenture and deposits to debt service reserve
accounts and common debt service reserve sub-funds.
And E and F, the payment of costs of
issuance incurred in connection with issuing these bonds.
Written comments related to this plan to issue bonds must have been
submitted by email to the Committee on Finance no later than
10:00 a.m. Friday, July 10th, 2026.
I let the record reflect that no written comments were submitted for
this project.
Ladies and gentlemen, if any resident, taxpayer, or other interested
persons attending the hearing desires an opportunity to
express their views on the proposed plan of finance for the issuance of
the bonds and the facilities being financed and/or
refinanced at O'Hare, please do one of the following.
For those attending this hearing in person, please come up to the microphone in the
aisle when your name is called. Or for those who have called in on the
toll-free phone line, please enter star nine on your phone
to notify the host of the call-in number, and once called upon to
provide your comments, please enter star six to unmute your phone.
Each speaker will be limited to two minutes.
We have two members of the public who wish to make a statement with respect
to this
matter. The first one is George Blakemore, followed by
Peter Lotta.
Mr. Blakemore.
When I spoke a few minutes ago, read.
Read.
Just don't let her
read for you. Reading is fundamental.
How many banks are Black-owned, banks
that's going to deposit this money?
These concession stands
out at O'Hare. How much money? These construction
jobs,
how many Black men going to be working?
But we have these Black faces in high
places. You know what happened to Burt?
He was indicted.
But this is very important that we
understand how government works.
The stealing, the corruption, and the people
are scowled.
Derated.
Two people going to speak about it, and it's going to pass, and the people are
scowled. There's something wrong
here. There's something corrupt here
with this money, finance. And you know who's
getting
nothing? It's the Black community, because we have
poor Black leadership. We got Black faces in
high places. Reading is
fundamental. You just run into this, and only two people going to
speak about it. And you others are up here just look.
Look at you.
Won't be leaving.
Look at you.
Don't blame it on the politician. I blame it on all of y'all.
All of y'all.
All you Democrats here. Don't blame it on the big head white man, Trump.
Trump's not down here.
I'm blaming it on all of you. Racism, nepotism,
corruption, right here,
right now, it's going on. And look at the people.
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore. Our next speaker is Peter Latta.
Okay, I think Mr. Latta
made his statement in the earlier TEFRA
hearing.
Ladies and gentlemen,
this concludes the public hearing on the proposed plan for the City of
Chicago to issue the not to exceed $4 billion
560 million
principal amount of the Chicago O'Hare International Airport,
General Airport, Senior Lien Revenue and Revenue Refunding Bonds
Series 2026BCD. Let the record
reflect that the public hearing on this matter was concluded at
10:40 AM, July 13th. This concludes the
TEFRA hearing. Thank you.
Would like to add Alderman Hopkins to
the quorum count for today.
Okay, the regular meeting of the Finance Committee
is called to order. We'll now have a roll call to establish quorum.
Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman LaSpada. Alderman Hopkins. Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell. Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beale. Alderman Lee. Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn. Alderman Lopez. Alderman Moore.
Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Ervin. Alderman Talley-Ferrell.
Alderman Cardona. Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas. Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knutson.
Alderman Silverstein. Chair Dowell is here.
Alderman Vasquez is here.
We have a quorum. We have 23 members present.
Alderman Hadden, we recognize you as a non-member.
Thank you for coming.
Alderman Rodriguez, Alderman Scott, Alderman Mitts,
Alderman Curtis, Alderman Martin, Alderman Taylor, and
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez have requested to participate
remotely at today's meetings for reasons stated under the provision of Rule
59. Can I have a motion to allow these aldermen to participate?
So moved by Alderman Villegas. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it, and the motion carries.
And we can confirm that Alderman
Rodriguez, Alderman-
Here.
Knutson.
Excuse me, Alderman Scott, Alderman Mitts, Alderman Curtis-
Here. Alderman Martin, Alderman Taylor, and Alderman Rodriguez
Sanchez are here with us this morning.
Present.
Here. At this time, we'll begin the public comment
period. The public comment period will be limited to 30 minutes.
Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to two
minutes today because we have so many
people. And since we have a number of folks who have signed up today,
we will select the speakers by a lottery.
We do have four that are virtual, so we will select 11
in-person pink slips.
Again, each speaker is limited to two minutes.
We'll begin with Lucas Oates.
Mr. Oates?
Mr. Oates, press star six to unmute.
Mr. Oates?
Good morning.
My name is Lucas Oates.
I'm a member of United Here Local 1.
I'm also a doorman at the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago.
On behalf of my union to urge you to vote
no on the TIF ordinances for the 78 development.
I'm really proud to be part of Chicago's world-class hospitality industry.
I love being the first face that people see when they visit my city.
I think it sends a bad message to workers and visitors if
the City of Chicago writes a $425 million check
for a hospitality project and lets them pay minimum wage.
Why would the city spend millions of dollars to create permanent jobs that might
not pay more than minimum wage? That's not right.
If the 78 receives any TIF money, it needs to create the world-class
jobs our neighborhood deserves. Until that happens, the
committee should vote no.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Oates. Our next speaker is Brendan Sullivan.
Can I be heard?
Yes, please
start.
Mr-
Can I be heard?
Mr. Sullivan, please give your remarks.
Chair Dowell, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to
you today My name is Brendan Bastian Sullivan.
I'm a researcher at Unite Here Local 1.
I'm here to share our union's objection to the public subsidy,
TIF, for the 78 Project.
Our concern is about transparency.
Chicagoans ought to know what specifically public funds are being used to
support,
and their elected representatives should make a point of finding out.
The TIF ordinance is now being considered. Leave those questions unanswered.
Plan Development 1434 for the 78, amended in September
2025, does not make clear what will be built on the
non-stadium portions of the site.
The permitted uses approved for the entirety of the site range from housing and
hotels to data centers, hospitals, and renewable energy
generation facilities. The current TIF proposals lack
specificity about what hundreds of millions of dollars in public
funds could end up supporting. The parking structure proposed in one
ordinance includes vertical air rights parcels that,
according to the authorizing ordinance, could host, quote, "Restaurants,
retail, residential towers, hotels, and/or other mixed use
commercial buildings allowed by Plan Development 1434."
It contains no further specifics.
Neither TIF proposal provides any new information about
subareas three and four, south of the planned Fire Stadium.
All the developer has provided about their plans for the southern third of the site
to date are vague drawings, a bulk table, and a laundry
list of permitted uses. We struggle to understand how the finance
committee can responsibly allocate massive public subsidy to this
project with so little concrete information about the actual buildings
and specific uses this infrastructure and garage are meant to support.
Please vote no on both TIF allocations for the
78. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Our next speaker is Lou Weeks.
Hi, good morning, Chair Dowell. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today. My name is Lou Weeks, and I serve as the Executive Vice President of Unite
Here Local 1, Chicago's union of hospitality workers.
As you've heard from our previous speakers, I'm here to express our profound
concern about two TIF allocations that have been proposed in support of Related
Midwest's 78 development, and to urge you not to support any public
subsidy for the project without a path to good jobs.
Our primary concern is about the jobs.
At the time of writing, there is no path to good paying hospitality jobs anywhere
within the 78. Neither of the newly proposed redevelopment agreements
make any provision for hospitality jobs at the project to pay
more than city minimum wage, which is currently $17.05 an
hour.
MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's living wage calculator for
Chicago, states that living wage is $25.80 per
hour for a single adult with no children.
More troubling, the jobs covenant included in the redevelopment agreement for the
infrastructure portions of the TIF doesn't even include a real commitment to
permanent job creation. Instead, the covenant commits the
developer to aspire to the creation of some number of permanent
jobs. In the document made public on the City Council's website,
that number was left blank. If the developer can't make a firm commitment to good
hospitality jobs, or indeed to the creation of any permanent jobs, it's not
clear how the working people of Chicago can expect any economic benefit from
the 78.
I also want to echo the concerns Alderman Conway has raised previously about the
proposed use of funds from the Canal Congress TIF for this project.
We are opposed to the city's plan to move TIF funds raised and allocated in one
area to a private development, especially one with as many unresolved issues as the
78. This is not a responsible or sustainable move by this committee.
Again, I urge you to vote no on these ordinances. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Weeks. Our next speaker is Francisco Senor.
Francisco Senor is not present.
All right. That means we have room for 12 in-person
pink slips.
We will
begin with the lottery.
The first speaker is Nikita Nicholas.
I'm sorry, Nikita Nicholson.
Hi, my name is Nikita Nicholson. I work-
Could you speak into the mic?
Oh.
Hi, can you hear me? My name is Nikita Nicholson.
I work at the Hilton Chicago on Michigan Avenue, and I'm a proud member of Unite
Here Local 1.
I'm also a proud Third Ward resident.
I've lived in the South Loop for over 15 years.
I'm here to urge this committee to vote no on the two TIF ordinances for the
78.
Mm-hmm.
I love my neighborhood, the calm, the quiet, and the fact that I can walk around at
night.
I feel a strong sense of community.
After a neighbor of mine was tragically killed in 2016, I realized I
didn't know people around me, and I wasn't alone.
I joined a neighborhood watch group to keep together and stay informed, and that
group has evolved into a solid community of lifelong friends.
And I have a real stake in what happens.
I'm planning to become a homeowner right in this area,
and my good hospitality job has put that dream in reach.
When I heard that the 78 Project was coming, I could see the good and the bad.
It might mean more traffic, more crowds, less of the tranquility
that I love, but it could offer real opportunities, too.
But when I heard the project was asking for over $400 million in TIF funds without
any commitment to good jobs, I couldn't believe my ears.
If this project can't commit to giving people in this neighborhood a decent place
to work close to home, what's really in it for us?
Quality hospitality jobs keep people out of trouble, keep
them healthy, keep them spending their paychecks at local businesses.
This committee is being asked to handle over $400 million for a plan full of
question marks and no real benefit for workers like me.
I'm
insulted. Chicago should be insulted. This committee should be insulted.
I also want to say that what Alderman Conway has said about this plan is true.
It's wrong to take TIF funds from other districts and hand them to the
78. Why would you take money away from projects that help people where they live
right now and hand it to a project where some people might live in the future?
If someone told me they wanted to take money away from my area, hand it to the
private-
Thank you, Ms. Nicholson. Our next speaker is Nino Brown.
Before I speak up, I want to clarify, are we only speaking about the 78
development?
This is public comment, so you can speak on
anything that is on the agenda, or if you have some other point you want to
make. Are you Mr. Brown?
Yes, I am.
Thank you.
I wanted to speak about the
parking meter transfer vote.
So just to start,
members of this council, I'm here because this council is one vote away
from handing Chicago's streets to Wall Street for a second time.
In 2008, the city sold our parking meters for 75
years at the tune of
$1.15 billion
to a consortium of Morgan Stanley, Alliance Capital Partners, and
the Sovereign Wealth Fund of Abu Dhabi.
Chicagoans have paid for that deal every day since.
Rates have tripled, meters running at 3:00 a.m.
on holidays, tickets stacking up on working-class families,
while profits flowed straight from a bank, a German insurance
conglomerate, and a foreign monarchy.
And the United States just celebrated 250 years of a revolt against
monarchies, so yet we're still in dealing with one.
So what's on the table today?
From my point of view, not justice, not public ownership.
A private equity firm, Stone Peak, out of New York, is buying that
same revenue stream for $2.53 billion in
pure profit, walking straight into the pockets of Morgan Stanley,
Alliance, and Abu Dhabi Sovereign Fund, extracted meter by meter,
quarter by quarter from Chicago drivers for 18 years.
And the mayor's own office admits the city's bid for $3.2
billion to buy the stream back for public, and we walked it back saying that it was
too risky. But let's be honest about what this means.
It means that the city's budget, public ownership of a system that has proved to
worth $2.53 billion in real estate value is treated as reckless,
but guaranteed profit for Wall Street and a Gulf monarchy is treated as business
as usual. So every year city council delays, another fortune leaves
the city. Vote no on this transfer, fight for public options and the
Chicago streets-
Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Our next speaker is Angela Drexel.
Good morning, Chairwoman and members of the City Council.
My name is Angela Drexel, and I am the owner of Black Rock Construction, a
certified minority and women-owned concrete construction
enterprise. I am here today to urge your support for the proposed
infrastructure TIF funding for the 78 development.
Right now, my crew is on the ground working on this site.
For a business like mine, a mega development of this scale is not just another
project. It's an opportunity to further grow our
operational capacity by providing the means to invest in my business,
purchase equipment, and most importantly, continue to hire directly from our
local neighborhoods, providing workers an entry point into the
trades they otherwise may not have.
Trades that provide substantial wages, benefits, and long-term career
paths.
In the few months that we have been on the project, we have already
identified two women apprentices from the South Side who have been
participating in Chicago Women in Trades Workforce Development program to
join our field crew on site.
As a business owner who started my construction career 27 years ago
as a graduate of the Chicago Women in Trades Technical Opportunity program
and subsequently the IBEW Local 134 apprenticeship, I can
personally attest that these are the type of opportunities the 78
Project is providing, and they are transformational.
In terms of economic equity and supporting diverse businesses in Chicago,
Related Midwest and the Chicago Fire have committed to rigorous MWBE
participation goals on the 78. Because of this project, diverse
local carpenters, ironworkers, laborers, and other tradespersons are
earning union wages to build a historic soccer stadium and a new
neighborhood. The TIF funding will provide vital public infrastructure, such as
roads, utilities, and structural foundations that will allow the project to
progress, our workforce to continue to work, and our business to
continue growing operational capacity without interruption.
Thank you for your consideration and your support of Chicago MWBE
businesses.
Thank you, Ms. Drexel.
Our next speaker is Kyle Lucas.
Good morning, Chairwoman Dowell and members of the committee.
My name is Kyle Lucas. I'm the executive director of Better Street Chicago.
We're a grassroots organization that advocates for transportation in our city
for people who walk, roll a bike, and take transit.
And we're here today to urge this committee to take more time
on the 78 Project, and not move forward with the
TIF amendment as it is proposed today.
This is because we are really concerned that when we are using
public dollars, that there's demonstrated public benefit.
This project has been envisioned for a long time, and under
the original proposal in 2019, there were promises of
significant investments in public transit on this site.
There were promises of realigning the Metro tracks to create a
more neighborhood-friendly environment along Clark Street and providing better
pedestrian access to this site. Under this proposal, which has
been rushed through by the Johnson administration
in order to get a political win because they can say that a billionaire is
funding their own stadium,
we have seen a removal of a lot of this public benefit that had been
previously promised without real transparency on what
a new parking deck is going to provide for the public.
Mind you, a parking deck that will be publicly owned.
Where is the transparency on what the
financing of this
public facility is going to be? What are the long-term implications?
And why have we denied public investment in public transit
to a
site that's going to bring in 22,000 new people on game
days?
Not even considering the future potential development of
housing on this site. We think it's really important that council takes its
time, that you ask tough questions, and that we get
this right because we know what happens when we don't.
Just look at the parking meter deal that we're discussing today. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Bobby Abara.
Bobby Abara?
Moving on. Our next speaker is Carl Gutierrez.
How many of them?
Good morning, Chair Dowell and members of the committee.
My name is Carl Gutierrez from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.
Three.
We are here to express our support for DPD's ordinances authorizing the execution
of redevelopment agreements provided to provide TIF funds for the 78 Project, which
is a generational opportunity for us to draw on assets and resources
other cities can only dream of,
and that all of us here are blessed to have.
Holistically fusing neighborhood retail, residential, office space, sports,
entertainment, and aqua recreation, all while expanding our downtown and
serving as a bridge to other landmark neighborhoods like Pilsen and Chinatown.
And in the process, organically and sustainably growing our city's
economy, our population, and critically, our tax base.
All these things we should be excited for.
Additionally, we also support how the TIF funds are being used, which we view
as being on balance sound. Taken together, these are good things,
and this is a good day. The 78 space was built 100 years ago, but
never built on, and continued to sit for the last 50 years since the train yard was
demolished. And that's finally changing.
There are countless individuals who deserve credit for this, but I want to briefly
acknowledge two.
The first is Commissioner Boatwright and her team at DPD.
And second is our chair and third ward alderwoman, Pat Dowell, for her
longtime leadership in turning a 50-year empty lot into what is
poised to be our city's next great neighborhood.
Sending a proof positive message that we as a city can still do big things, make
big plans,
and get great work done. It's for these reasons we encourage and recommend due pass
from this committee and a successful vote at City Council. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Mark Hopkins.
Good morning, Chair Dowell and members of the committee. Thank you very much.
I'm Mark Hopkins. I have the honor of having two roles in Chicago.
I'm the executive director of the Chicago Central Area Committee, as
well as the Friends of Downtown, and we're one of the subjects of item number 13
on your agenda today of transferring a different named nonprofit into the
development agreement for 135 South LaSalle Street.
And I just wanted to let you know a little bit about who we are and why we're
working together. For the last year, the boards of the two organizations have been
aligning on our programmatic work.
We were both founded to ensure the dynamism and equity of
downtown development in Chicago, to ensure that Chicago's central area
is the economic heart of Chicago, but yet that the neighborhoods benefit from
any economic development that happens here.
And so what we're looking forward to now is doing a series of development
projects, at least advocating for those, that bring new housing to the
Chicagoland area. We're looking at a long-term strategy for what gets built
at every tier of the market, whether that's affordable all the way up to
condominium development. According to some estimates, we're
140,000 units below where we would've been over the last
20 years. And the Chicago Central Area plan, looking at 2045,
is calling for 94,000 additional residents just in the central
area, and we need units for that. So this development will
bring almost 400 units to scale to
place, bring us 116 affordable units, and the
entire LaSalle project will bring us over 500 affordable units.
So that, I think, is a big benefit. I wanted to let you know that we are behind the
project, that both the
systems and processes are in place to facilitate our
partnership in the agreement, and that we are fully supportive of that.
And then briefly, in the last 18 seconds, I'd like to also just say we are
supportive of the TIF funding for the 78.
I've been fortunate to see the long-term redevelopment plan for that, and
it is quite dramatic with the amount of housing, businesses, and other things that
will be built over time, and that we, of course, advocate for the
expenditure of those funds. Thank you.
Thank you. Our next speaker is George Blakemore.
Three times today, George.
Thank you.
That first speaker was outside.
He should have been here
and remote. And with these aldermen come,
"Uh-uh,
you're supposed to be on your job.
You're supposed to do your job.
You're not supposed to call in."
For what reason? An emergency? Some of the,
"No, no, no, no, no. They're taking advantage of the citizens
and their position
as public servants." You must remember,
you chose to be public servants,
and you serve us. We don't serve you.
That's why Chicago is known to be a corrupt city
about how many of their elected officials have
been indicted.
Oh, you're looking sophisticated.
Oh, you're just looking so, uh-uh.
How many of your elected officials have
been indicted?
Criminals.
You all
forget that you are supposed to serve us.
Don't talk about in an election. They steal these elections.
Don't talk about, "I voted for Ms. Who Who and Miss
Who Who." Oh, no, you didn't.
Or the election board, they steal these elections.
They'll steal sweetness out of sugar.
And you know why they can do that? Because you are
silent.
So you deserve the government you get, and you get the
government you deserve by being
silent. You can look good, you
can talk good, you can dress good, you can act good, you can
smell good, and be a piece of sh-
Thank you, Mr. Blakemore.
I'd like to acknowledge Alderman Cardona
and Alderman Hall,
and
Alderman Nugent, are you...
Oh, I'm sorry. You're absolutely right.
Thank you, whoever said that.
Thank you.
Well, if your name is not on this list, you won't make it today. Sorry.
We had too many people.
So the last speaker
is Shahara Byford.
Good morning, Chairwoman and Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
My name is Shahara Byford, and I am the founder and owner of
Byford Construction.
I have worked for large general contractors for 25 plus
years, and started my own firm over four years ago.
Byford Construction is a union carpentry firm, and we
are extremely appreciative of the opportunity to
work on the 78 Project.
I urge this committee to vote yes for the 78 Development TIF
funds. As I mentioned, Byford Construction, we are a union
carpentry firm, and we are a proud MBE/WBE firm
in the city of Chicago. We're grateful to have carpenters on
that site and on that project today, and it provides us so many
different opportunities as an emerging firm in construction.
It gives us the opportunity to expand our capacity, our bonding,
our line of credit, our backlog, and most importantly, our workforce,
as we continue to grow. It's imperative to
a company like ours to have projects and developments like
this to work on and be a part of. So impactful for our
company to help maintain the jobs that we provide our
employees. Thank you for continuing to be intentional in
relationship to supporting small and emerging firms, specifically
minority and women-owned businesses, through funding support like
this and for developments like the 78.
Thank you to Related Midwest and the Chicago Fire for bringing these types
of development forward and providing opportunities to firms like mine.
Please, I encourage you all to vote yes for the funding at the
78. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.
Thank you. This concludes the public comment period.
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, if you're going to have
something to say, I told you what the explanation was.
If you don't like it, I would ask that you leave.
Thank you.
The items before the committee, we have 16 items on the
agenda this morning. We'll begin with the approval of the June
2026 monthly Rule 45 report for the Committee on
Finance.
So this
report was sent electronically, and the motion's been made by
Alderman Vasquez to move this motion to
accept the Rule 45 report. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Alderman Nugent
Chair, I did just want to mention when you added me for
quorum, pursuant to my role as president pro tempore under Rule 36, I intend to
participate and vote on matters today as an ex officio matter.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. Item number one
are two proposed orders authorizing the payment of various small
claims against the City of Chicago.
It's a direct introduction, and this list of payments as approved,
was sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no objections, these will be placed on the omnibus.
Item number two, also miscellaneous, is a proposed
order denying the payment of various small claims against the City of
Chicago. Again, a direct introduction, and this list of
payments denied was sent electronically to everyone, and if there are no
objections, these will be placed on the omnibus.
Item number three are two proposed orders authorizing
charitable solicitation on the public way permits to the
following organizations: The Knights of Columbus for a
citywide effort September 11th through 13,
2026, and September 17th through 20th,
2026. And for the Project Orbis
International, Inc., for a citywide effort August
8th, 2026, through December 31st,
2026. If there are no objections, these permits are approved
and will be placed on file with the clerk.
Item number four from the Department of Law is a
communication transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts,
judgments, or settlements were entered into for the month of June
2026. These reports were sent electronically to
everyone, and if there are no objections, these items will be
placed on file with the clerk.
Item number five
is from the Department of Law. It's one proposed order
authorizing the corporation council to enter into and
execute a settlement order in the following case:
Albert Ochoa versus Jose Lopez et
al., case number
20CV2977 in the amount of
$9 million. We're joined by Jessica Felker,
deputy corporation counsel.
Good morning, Jessica.
Good morning, Chair. This is a reverse conviction lawsuit in which
plaintiff Alberto Ochoa spent approximately 17 years in
custody. The Department of Law recommends settling this lawsuit
for $9 million. Plaintiff was convicted of the
2002 murder of 15-year-old Marilu Socia.
On December 17th, 2002, Ms. Socia was standing on
a sidewalk with her boyfriend, Joseph Maldonado, around the
3000 block of South Colon Avenue in the Little Village neighborhood.
A green sedan with plastic on the driver's side window containing
four individuals drove up, and a passenger in the back seat
fired at least four shots, striking and killing Ms. Socia.
As the driver drove away, someone in the vehicle shouted, "King Love,"
indicating the offenders belonged to the Latin King gang.
Maldonado was a member of the Two-Six gang and presumably the target of
the shooting.
Almost one hour later, a male individual called saying he had just been
robbed by two Hispanic males in a green sedan with
plastic on the driver's side window.
Officers found the green sedan parked four and a half blocks away.
The officers found two men, Arturo Bentazos, who was sitting in the
driver's seat, and Arturo Simon, who was nearby.
The officers arrested both men and transported them to Area Four for
questioning. At Area Four, Simon and Bentazos
eventually admitted that they were involved with two other men, Eduardo
Torres and a man with a nickname Chilango, who was later
identified to be plaintiff. They insisted the plaintiff shot the
victim. Simon's and Bentazos' clothing tested positive for
gunshot residue, and shell casings in the car matched those on the
scene of the murder.
Maldonado and two other scene witnesses viewed a lineup
containing Bentazos and Simon, but they were unable to identify
either. Torres was brought to Area Four for questioning,
where he also admitted he was in the green sedan at the time of the shooting,
and he too said that his friend Chilango shot the victim.
Following these two statements, detectives with eight to
12 other officers arrested plaintiff at his home, and he was taken
into custody. Plaintiff was 20 years old at the time he was
arrested. Plaintiff is Spanish-speaking and came
to the United States in 2002. He testified that he did not
have much of an ability to speak or understand English in 2002.
Plaintiff alleges that when he was arrested at his residence, two detectives took
him into the back on the porch, where one of them punched him and
strangled him, and the other hit him with a flashlight.
Plaintiff was brought to Area Four, where he was interrogated.
The Spanish-speaking detective translated for plaintiff.
Detectives reported that plaintiff admitted that Torres gave him a
firearm, and then plaintiff attempted to shoot the man with Ms.
Socia, but plaintiff found out the next day he had struck Ms.
Socia instead.
The assistant state's attorney, Kent Delgado, came in to question plaintiff and
take his statement with the same detective acting as the
translator. The statement, written by ASL Delgado in English,
mirrored the plaintiff's earlier confession.
Plaintiff claims that the statement was made up.
He did not know what the detective told ASA Delgado, and the
statement was never read back to him in Spanish.
Plaintiff alleges that he has an alibi.
At the time of the shooting, he was home and then went with his roommate, Carlos
Tellez, to cash their paychecks, rent movies, and buy some
beers. They returned home and continued watching movies until
plaintiff fell asleep.
After being charged, plaintiff told his public defender that he had been beaten
and complained of pain to his neck and genitals.
Photos do not display any swelling or bruises.
Plaintiff, along with Torres, Pentasos, and Simon, were all convicted.
Torres is now deceased. Pentasos and Simon remain
convicted and were deposed in this case, but pled the fifth at their
depositions. They had previously signed affidavits that plaintiff
was innocent, but they refused to answer questions about those affidavits at their
depositions. Plaintiff's conviction was overturned because of
hearsay evidence that was improperly admitted at his trial.
He was retried again, and again, the hearsay evidence was admitted, and again, he
was awarded a new trial.
In 2019, plaintiff filed a motion to suppress after he
located Tellez to testify about his alibi, and was permitted
to present evidence of other complaints against one of the
defendant detectives. The defendant
detective at issue, however, was not able to testify at the
hearing due to medical reasons, and the motion to suppress the
statement was granted. On October 23rd, 2019, the
charges against plaintiff were dismissed, and he was released after approximately
17 years in custody. Plaintiff was granted a certificate of
innocence after the judge ruled his confession could not be used against him
in those proceedings. The state's attorney's office took no
position. Plaintiff brought this lawsuit alleging that detectives
coerced and fabricated his confession, and withheld
exculpatory evidence of their tactics.
There is no physical evidence tying plaintiff to the crime.
The gun was never located. If this settlement is not approved, then the
court will likely rule on summary judgment, but this will proceed to
trial. Plaintiff is likely to seek $34 to $68
million at trial, and if successful, plaintiff will be entitled to
attorney's fees, which are likely in the range of $3 to $5 million.
Given the risk of a trial, the law department recommends settlement in the amount
of $9 million.
Thank you, Ms. Felker.
Do I have any questions from the committee? Vice Chair Conway.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I'd actually asked to recuse myself on a Rule
14 out of an abundance of caution. Judge Kent Delgado is a
good friend of mine. We worked together extensively at the state's attorney's
office. Obviously, with him here taking this confession, he's a pretty big part of
this case. And I will make sure to send the necessary notice to clerk's
office. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Before I take any more questions, I'd like to
acknowledge that Alderman Burnett has requested
to participate remotely at today's meeting for
reasons stated under Rule 59. Can I have a motion to
allow Alderman Burnett in? So moved by
Alderman Harris. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Alderman Burnett, are you there?
Yes, I'm here.
All right. Thank you.
Any other questions for Ms. Felker?
Alderman Sposato.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Jessica. I'm guessing we never found the person that
allegedly did this.
There was four people convicted, including plaintiff.
The other three remain convicted of this crime.
Were the four together?
That was the statements they gave, were the four were in the sedan
together. Now-
The one guy that didn't speak English said he wasn't with them?
Correct. The plaintiff says he wasn't with them.
Now, two of those convicted have offered statements
saying that he wasn't with them, and then the third is
deceased.
Thank you.
Mm-hmm. Thank you, Alderman Sposato. Alderman Waguespack.
Ms. Felker, was there any contribution from Cook County on the reversal, or
did they have any involvement in a separate settlement?
They were not sued in this case.
Okay. Thank you.
All right. Seeing no other questions, is there a motion to recommend
approval of item number 5A?
So moved by Alderman Mosley, recommending do pass.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass recommendation will
be reported out at the next city council meeting. Jessica, thank you so much.
Thank you, Chair.
Item number 6,
from the Chicago Public Library, an ordinance authorizing
the execution of a grant agreement with the Chicago Public
Library Foundation in support of the Thomas Hughes
Children's Library, located at 400 South State
Street in the 4th Ward, in an amount up to
$500,000. We're joined by Patrick
Molloy from the
Chicago Public Library.
Good morning.
Good morning,
Chairwoman Dowell, and members of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to present today.
My name is Patrick Molloy, and I'm here on behalf of Chicago Public Library.
Today, we're requesting approval of an ordinance authorizing Chicago
Public Library to enter into a grant agreement with the Chicago Public Library
Foundation,
to accept a private donor-restricted bequest of up to
$500,000 from the Carl H. Jurst estate.
This investment will strengthen literacy opportunities for Chicago children
and families, while requiring no taxpayer
funding.
So
today, it's a pretty straightforward ordinance.
We're requesting authorization to accept and administer a private
gift of up to $500,000 through the Chicago Public Library Foundation.
The funds are donor restricted and will support
children's programming, children's books and collections,
educational material,
family literacy programming, and innovation at our
central library at the Thomas Hughes Children's Library, which is located at the
Harold Washington Library Center.
And it's important to emphasize, again, that there is no city
funds, no taxpayer cost,
and an approval simply allows us to honor the donor's
wishes and responsibly administer this
generous private investment.
So just a little bit of information about the Chicago
Public Library Foundation. The foundation exists to strengthen
CPL through private philanthropy.
For many years, the foundation and the library have worked together on
programming, technology,
and expanded opportunities for Chicago residents.
Annually, the Library Foundation gives approximately $4 to $5
million, which is about 4.5% of
their endowment each year.
The
majority of this funding goes towards, as I mentioned before,
early literacy types of things.
This gift allows
us to continue to expand on these opportunities,
especially as we recently launched our 81 Club, which is
named after the 81 libraries that we have in the city of Chicago,
where
CPS students now have automatic
access to library resources. They automatically receive a library card, which
means 330,000 additional
students
now have access to library resources that they may
not have had before.
So the Thomas Hughes Children's Library, it
is downtown in our central library, but it serves as our flagship
for children's programming.
It's somewhat of an innovation hub for the entire system.
So we put in new collections and
educational materials. The books that are on the shelves are
available. Any new book that is purchased with this money would be
available to residents citywide through our hold system.
And also important are the programs that take place at the Harold Washington
Library and the Thomas Hughes Children's Library.
This is where we test programming ideas that eventually will go out to our
libraries citywide.
So just basically what I was just saying is how
the investment goes to the Thomas Hughes Children's
Library, where we pilot programs.
We train staff on these programs that are successful at the Harold
Washington Library, and over time,
after the staff training, that becomes part of our
programming standard that goes out to all 81 library
systems where we support families throughout Chicago.
And if you want to look at here, these
are the key
uses of the $500,000, would be to support children's collections,
to support programming such as our summer learning program that is going
on right now citywide. And the important thing is
the key investment in family programming, where it's not just about programming for
the kids, but actually helping to teach the
caregivers and families how to be effectively part
of the literacy journey.
So I think today, again, what we're looking for today is for city council
approval of this private donor-restricted bequest of
$500,000
from the Carl H. Yurst estate. We would like
to honor the donor intent, and, once again,
this would require no taxpayer funding.
Thank you, Mr. Malloy.
Before we open it up for questions, if there are any, I'd like to
acknowledge Alderman Beale, who has requested
to participate remotely for reasons stated
under the provisions of Rule 59. Can I have a motion to
allow Alderman Beale to participate?
So moved by Alderman Villegas. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have
it. Alderman Beale, are you there?
Yes, I am. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Malloy on this item?
Alderman Silverstein.
Thank you, Chairman. Hey, Patrick.
Hi.
Just a quick question. The city council has to approve?
No. So generally,
people can donate directly to the Library Foundation, but in this specific
case, this money was donated to the library, and
because the purpose of the donation is
to support programming and is consistent with
some of the funding that our foundation typically would
manage. The request here is to allow us to grant it
to the Library Foundation to administer and report on this grant.
Okay, thank you. That's it.
Any other questions? Seeing no other... Oh, Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.
Can
Mr. Malloy provide, through the chair, a list of all of the state grants
given by the Secretary of State with regards to support of our libraries?
I'm sorry. A list
administered by the Secretary of State, did you say?
Mm-hmm, that were given to all of our libraries. Okay. Thank you.
Seeing no other questions,
hold on before we take a vote here. I want to acknowledge Alderman
Hall, who has joined us and will be counted towards
quorum.
Alderman Mosley moves to pass. All those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it,
and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council
meeting. Mr. Molloy, thank you for your presentation today.
Thank you.
Going out of order of the agenda, we're going to take
items number 15 and 16, which is related
to the
78 TIF.
These items will be heard together.
But before we hear these items,
we have a substitute ordinance,
and I'd like to move for both 15 and 16.
And can I get a
move-- So moved by Alderman Villegas to accept.
Yes, Alderman Conway.
These revised redevelopment
agreements include 220 pages of
dense legal documents that were delivered less than two business days
ago. And to say that these documents look like
a crime scene of red ink of revision
speaks to the level of last-minute changes to this
$424 million project.
Now, I've tried to muddle my way through them, and I appreciate your staff
answering questions of mine over the weekend.
But noting the size of this project,
which by the way, is bigger than all of the LaSalle Street projects
combined, plus almost the entirety of the new Lincoln
Yards products, Foundry Park, all of that combined,
I would simply like to register my objection and ask in the future that such
documents be delivered with proper notice. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Villegas accepted to move the substitute.
Can I get all those in favor signify by saying aye.
Thank you. All those opposed? No. Record it.
We will hear items 15 and 16 together in one presentation.
However, we will vote on each item separately.
And we have with us today, Jeff Cohen from the
Department of Planning and Development to give us a
presentation. Mr. Cohen?
Good afternoon.
Good morning, Chairwoman Dowell and esteemed members of
the Committee on Finance. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, Deputy
Commissioner with the Department of Planning and Development's Bureau of Economic
Development. I'm also joined today by Michael Carey and Bailey Mitchell,
financial planning analysts with the Bureau, Assistant Commissioner Noah
Sofrenuk with the Plan Development team, and Ann Zhang, Managing Deputy with CDOT.
We're also joined by members of Related Midwest, the Chicago Fire Football Club,
and the respective council. We are here seeking your favorable consideration and
approval of items number 15 and 16 on today's agenda, consisting
of an amended and restated infrastructure redevelopment agreement and a second
podium infrastructure redevelopment agreement between the city and Roosevelt Clark
Partners LLC, authorizing the use of TIF funds up to approximately
$174 million and $250 million respectively,
or $424.9 million in totality. If
approved, the funds would be used to reimburse eligible costs in the construction
of public infrastructure, including new and modified streets, essential
utilities, necessary site preparation work, and open space
connections, as well as a new podium that will house a city-owned parking garage
and over two acres of new public open space, all situated in the site known
as The 78.
The agreement was structured into two companion redevelopment agreements, one
covering the podium infrastructure and river wall, and one covering the roadway and
other infrastructure improvements.
This structuring is to account for the tax-exempt treatment of eligible
infrastructure costs and to ensure there is no commingling of expense
categories that carry different regulatory treatment.
Substitute ordinances for these RDAs were submitted after introduction for three
reasons, and I want to be transparent about each.
The substitutes memorialize the final negotiated business terms and removal of the
put option, updates guaranteed maximum price budgets, and protect the city
from cost overruns, as well as the two TIF district funding structure that
pairs the Roosevelt Clark TIF with transfer rights from the adjacent Canal Congress
as permitted under the TIF Act. Additionally, the substitutes raise the
developers' MWBE commitments above the city's standard requirements from
26% minority business enterprise and 6% women business
enterprise to 30% and 10% respectively.
Before I walk through the presentation, let me state plainly what this
request is and what it is not. Not one taxpayer dollar will be used
to fund the construction of the stadium, its operating costs, or private vertical
development. The 22,000-seat stadium is being built with a
$750 million fully committed private
capital investment, which makes it a rare exception in American professional
sports stadium development.
What these agreements fund is public infrastructure, streets that
reconnect a 62-acre hole in the city grid, finally
establishing a long-sought-after connection to the adjacent communities of the
South Loop, Bronzeville, and Chinatown.
It provides improvements to a severely deteriorated river frontage that
secures a half-mile public riverfront and a podium that incorporates a parking
structure that the city will own, supporting a public plaza and open space and
future revenue growth. All of which will allow The 78 to realize the
maximum potential of the master plan, as well as achieve the goals of the
redevelopment area.
What is proposed today is not a policy change to support vehicles over public
transit, pedestrian, or bike access.
It is a recalibrated plan that accounts for the realities of today's environment
that the lofty goals of the original plan were not able to achieve.
My hope today is to make clear and correct any misconceptions of
this request before the committee today.
The 62-acre site, commonly known as the 78, is located at
101-213 West Roosevelt Road and on 1200 to
1558 South Clark Street, and has laid dormant for nearly 50 years.
The site sits entirely within the Third Ward, represented by Alderwoman Pat Dowell,
the Near North Side community area,
the central planning region, and the Roosevelt/Clark TIF District, which was
established in 2019 and expires in 2043.
Shown here is an aerial view of the project site, highlighted in red, showing its
position within the city in the South Loop.
The site is generally bound by Roosevelt Road to the north, South Branch of the
Chicago River to the west, West 16th Street to the south, and South Clark Street to
the east. The site is highly transit accessible, served today by multiple CTA
bus routes and three CTA L stations serving the red, orange, and green
lines. These are all within walking distance to the site.
Again, the 62-acre site lays within the geographic heart of Chicago, walking
distance to the Loop and Lakefront, and has been fenced off and inaccessible to the
public for nearly 50 years.
The image shown here is the historic path of the Chicago River with the full 78
site highlighted in pink. Between 1926 and
1929, the city straightened the South Branch and redirected the river west to its
current channel. The former riverbed was filled, and the site operated as an active
railyard until 1977. Again, it has sat vacant ever since.
However, not because of a lack of ideas.
In fact, the market has tried repeatedly to solve how to activate this site.
It was Chicago's centerpiece offered in the Amazon HQ2 competition, it was
the announced home of the University of Illinois Discovery Partners Institute, and
it was a finalist for the Chicago casino, none of which were ever brought to
fruition.
These would've been catalyzing uses, but no private user can absorb the cost of
rebuilding the street grid, stabilizing a failing river wall, and driving deep
foundations through a filled riverbed before the first revenue-producing square
foot is ever built. This is a 50-year-old infrastructure gap.
Closing exactly that kind of gap is what the current authorization seeks to cure
and what tax increment financing exists to do.
The improvements contemplated in the original 2019 redevelopment agreement or
scaled-down 2020 amendment obviously never broke ground.
The honest answer is that the world changed underneath that plan, through no fault
of this committee, the community, or the development team.
The original program was anchored by office and institutional users, and within a
year of approval, COVID-19 arrived and set off a paradigm shift in how offices
are conceived, financed, and occupied.
A plan that was heavily reliant on office demand was entirely sound when it was
approved, however, is no longer financiable in a remote and hybrid
world. At the same time, the steepest inflation in four decades and the
fastest interest rate tightening cycle since the early 1980s made it impossible
to responsibly commence construction on a program priced against 2019
assumptions.
No one walked away from the site. The ground shifted, and the responsible course
was to pause, re-anchor the plan, and create a sound strategy to generate demand
and revenue, and return to this body with a program built for today's market.
The privately financed stadium, already under construction, is that anchor.
Here is an aerial view of the current conditions of the full 78 site, looking
eastward toward the lake. This image was taken almost a month ago, showing the
completed deep foundation site preparation work
after the Chicago Fire began construction on the privately funded stadium in early
March. I mention this as it is important to reiterate.
The private anchor investment that has plagued previous iterations and intentions
is already underway. The request before this committee today will determine whether
the public realm around that investment consists of a sea of parking lots and
undevelopable land, or as a connected neighborhood with streets, sidewalks, transit
staging, a river walk, public open space, and infrastructure that will allow for
additional private development, revenue generation, and new jobs.
Shown here are additional images of the significant foundation work that was
necessary to achieve the previous slide's completed condition.
Since the completion of the foundation, a tower crane has been installed and
vertical construction is moving forward, with a targeted completion aligning with
the start of the 2028 MLS season.
With this committee's approval, the infrastructure covered by the RDAs before you
can commence as early as this fall and be delivered along a similar timeline.
The developer, Roosevelt Clark Partners LLC, is a joint venture between Related
Midwest and CSLH Incorporated. The joint venture was
created in 2016, and since then, Related Midwest has led the $8 billion
development initiative to build what will become Chicago's 78th community.
Related has a 30-year track record of successful development history in Chicago,
spanning large-scale affordable housing development, such as Lathrop Homes,
Marshall Field Gardens, the Taylor Street Library and Apartments, as well as
successfully reactivating long-vacant and blighted sites, like the former Silver
Shovel site, U.S. Steelworks, and the former Spire site.
The TIF-funded infrastructure, right-of-ways, and parking structure component will
be conveyed to the city upon completion, with the river wall and open space atop
the podium being privately owned, operated, and maintained.
Related Midwest and the city will enter into an operating and management agreement
governing construction, operations, insurance, and liabilities of the podium
infrastructure, and will retain a qualified third-party parking operator to manage
day-to-day operations, all of which will have city approval rights and
must be memorialized by legally binding agreements as a condition
of the certificate of completion.
The city's interests throughout construction have been represented and will be
represented by Walker Consulting, a national specialist in parking and public
infrastructure since 1965.
The applicant, a joint venture led by Related Midwest, proposes major
infrastructure improvements to support the redevelopment of the historically vacant
62-acre site known as the 78.
These improvements include new roadways, enhanced riverfront access, and podium
infrastructure that will support a public plaza built above a city-owned garage
with approximately 1,200 below-grade spaces.
Together, these elements will open access to the Chicago River, immediately create
nearly three acres of the six acres of new green space, and support future phases
of the broader $8 billion private development plan for the site.
The TIF-funded scope includes the podium infrastructure and river wall improvements
totaling
$250,163,768,
and the roadway and utility construction totaling
$174,749,770,
for a total project budget of
$424,913,538.
At the core of this effort is an infrastructure podium, a single engineered
structure that addresses major challenges from previous attempts of development, as
well as the unique needs of the current development plan.
Construction of the infrastructure is anticipated to begin in Q4 '26,
with project completion expected in Q2 2031.
The TIF-funded project is structured as two RDAs, one covering construction of the
podium infrastructure and river wall,
and one covering the roadway infrastructure and utilities.
The roadway infrastructure will consist of 13th Street, 14th Street,
LaSalle Street, 15th Street, along with improvements to Wells Street, Roosevelt
Road, Clark Street, and a pedestrian connection at 15th Street over the
Metra tracks. Two RDAs were recommended by the city's TIF and
Bond Council to ensure regulatory compliance, specifically so that infrastructure
items retain their tax-exempt treatment and there is no commingling with other
TIF-eligible expenses that would be treated differently.
I want to emphasize a critical taxpayer protection embedded in these agreements.
The infrastructure budgets provided by Related are structured as guaranteed
maximum pricing contracts or GMPs.
If costs rise, the developer absorbs the overages, not the city or
additional authorizations for TIF funds.
City funds are dispersed only against completed, documented eligible
work verified through individual infrastructure component certificates of
completion,
and Walker Consultant serving as the city's independent owners'
representative throughout construction.
This site plan highlights the longstanding challenges created by the river's
redirection. The proposed infrastructure will connect the elevated Roosevelt
Road and Clark Street down to the site at grade via LaSalle Street and 13th Street.
The internal street grid will be completed with 14th Street at grade, followed by
15th Street, located south of the proposed temporary surface parking lot.
In addition to providing vehicle and bicycle access from the elevated streets, the
parking structure will offer direct access to the new open spaces and the
riverwalk, including the boat launch, a river taxi stop, and will
serve as the podium for future vertical development on the north side of the
stadium. The area between the riverwalk and Wells Street
will be temporarily activated with multi-use sports facilities and pickleball
courts until the privately funded riverwalk is completed once the stadium is
finished.
Additionally, there will be a pedestrian connection across the Metra tracks at
15th Street, linking the site eastward to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Overlaid on the site plan is the visual TIF allocation plan.
The podium structure, including the city-owned parking garage, is the largest
component at $216 million.
The podium resolves the roughly 40-foot grade change between the elevated Roosevelt
Road and Clark Street viaducts and the site below.
It integrates new roadways back into the city grid.
It provides the deep foundations that future economically feasible vertical
development requires. It will support a street-level public plaza and open
space and avoid the need of a sea of surface parking lots at the
river frontage. Most importantly, it addresses the infrastructure
needs that open the entire site for further development, revenue generation,
and connecting long-separated communities.
One structure with several critical functions and why this investment is a
creative solution to a genuine engineering, planning, and development problem, not
just a garage with a plaza on top of it.
Much of that budget for the podium is dedicated to deep foundation work,
excavation, and site preparation required by the soil conditions of the former
riverbed.
On a conservative basis, approximately $80 million of that figure is attributable
to direct hard costs for the parking facility itself, inclusive
of the superstructure, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, enclosure, and the
elements needed to support the public plaza and roadways contemplated.
Compared to a typical standalone parking structure, the $68,000 per stall
cost is meaningfully below the approximate $100,000 per
stall hard cost estimate of similarly sized facilities, even
before accounting for deep foundations.
Those savings come from economic efficiencies in shared materials
and labor between the garage, the podium, and the public plaza.
Building these elements together is cheaper than building any of them apart.
Beyond the podium, public plaza, and garage, TIF funding is allocated to the new
roadways and to improvements on Roosevelt and Clark.
The final TIF allocations support construction of the new river wall, a cap over
the Metra tracks that creates new publicly accessible open space, and the new
pedestrian connector at 15th Street.
The site plan on this slide shows the bottom floor of the city-owned parking garage
and accurately represents the perimeter and total footprint of the structure.
In total, there will be approximately 1,200 spaces.
The facility will be open to the public for 320 days at rates subject to city
approval and available to the stadium on 45 large event days per
year. This garage will serve not just event-day attendees but
also serve future riverwalk visitors, park users, residents, and employees,
as well as the customers of every business that opens at The 78.
This diagram illustrates the ownership and rights associated with the podium
structure. The podium is necessary because this site cannot be developed the
way an ordinary city block can. Roosevelt Road and Clark Street sit roughly
40 feet above the natural grade of the site, and the filled riverbed below cannot
bear conventional foundations. The podium is the engineering answer to
both problems simultaneously. It lands the elevated streets onto the
site, and its deep foundations create buildable platform that 50 years of private
attempts could not. Without it, the northern portion of the 78 remains
what it is today, inaccessible and unbuildable.
The city will own the parking structure and can be conveyed the rights of way,
shown here in gray,
upon satisfactory completion. The areas in yellow are privately owned air rights
above the structure, which allow the future vertical development, along with the
privately owned, publicly accessible open space.
This arrangement is deliberate, and it works in the city's favor.
The public owns the revenue-generating garage and the streets, while the private
air rights above become taxable vertical development, whose assessed value grows
the very increment that repays this investment and funds future TIF-eligible
projects. The city is not buying land for a developer.
The city is building a public platform and keeping it.
The open space shown in green will be privately owned but publicly
accessible, allowing pedestrians movement from the Roosevelt Road grade
down to the Well Street grade and Riverwalk.
I want to be precise about what privately owned, publicly accessible means in
these agreements. Public access is not a courtesy, rather a
recorded obligation. The open space and Riverwalk must remain
ungated, unobstructed, free and open to the public, memorialized through a
recorded public access easement for the benefit of the city.
To be clear, the ongoing maintenance, programming, insurance, and management of
these spaces is the developer's obligation in perpetuity, and at the
developer's sole cost under a development and maintenance agreement that will
govern this and future open space.
Chicagoans get the park, developer pays the bill to keep it beautiful.
This three-dimensional image shows the ingress and egress points to the parking
garage, but also how people will actually move through the structure from the
Roosevelt Road grade at the top of the site, down to the Well Street grade and the
Riverwalk at the bottom. The public stairs shown here provides pedestrian
access from the plaza level down to Well Street.
Vehicle ramps descend into the parking structure from 13th Street and LaSalle
Street. Additional egress stairs are located on LaSalle Street and from the
Metra cap between Roosevelt Road and the 13th Street bridge, and
entry vestibules with ticketing, escalators, and ADA-accessible elevators
are positioned at both the north and south faces of the structure.
The design principle here is simple.
No visitor arriving by car, bus, train, bicycle, boat, or on foot, and
regardless of mobility, should ever find themselves stranded between the city grade
above and the river grade below. Two elevators and four public stairways
provide that fully accessible vertical circulation between the elevated streets,
the plaza, the open spaces, and the Riverwalk.
Shown here is the bike network. The site will feature a comprehensive multimodal
network. Existing protected bike lanes along Wells and Wentworth and Roosevelt
Road will link to Ping Tom Park, while new dedicated bike lanes on LaSalle
Street, 13th Street, and 14th Street will provide bicycle connections throughout
the site and directly to the Riverwalk.
The
plan includes two Divvy stations, one at each grade, and two secure biking park
areas, providing a total of 378 spaces.
This is located at the northwest corner of the site along Wells Wentworth and at
the intersection of 14th Street and Wells Wentworth.
On game days, 13th Street and Well Street will close to vehicular traffic,
prioritizing people over cars in the busiest pedestrian zones.
Pedestrian access will be enhanced with improved streetscapes and widened sidewalks
along Roosevelt Road, and upgraded connections from Roosevelt south along
Clark to the newly constructed 13th Street Bridge.
Vertical circulation includes two elevators and four stairways, as mentioned,
ensuring easy, accessible movement between the elevated streets and the public open
realms. Additionally, the new Metra cap creates a covered pedestrian easement
and green space, further stitching the site into the surrounding neighborhood
fabric while providing noise mitigation for surrounding residents.
Oops.
The site is also highly transit accessible and within close proximity to five
CTA bus routes, and also by the Roosevelt station serving the red, orange, and
green lines, roughly a 10-minute walk from the site.
This site is also served by the Cermak-Chinatown Red Line and Cermak-McCormick
Green Line stations to the south. For major event days, the Fire is working with
OEMC to provide a comprehensive traffic management plan to mitigate impacts
to surrounding communities. Traffic management measures will include, but not
limited to, enhanced bus facilities, a post-event CTA bus staging on Well
Street, and street control by OEMC.
The proximity to transit makes the new stadium the most transit-accessible stadium
in the city of Chicago, a conclusion supported by the traffic study performed by
KLOA and included in the planned development submission that was approved by City
Council in September of 2025.
I would be remiss to not discuss the exclusion of a new Red Line station in the
current request. In the over 15 community meetings and two town halls, the
community's call for additional rail investment serving this corridor, including
interest in a new station, have been heard,
and we do not dismiss it. We share these aspirations.
What I want to make clear today is nothing in these agreements precludes future
transit investment. In fact, the street grid, pedestrian connections, and Metro
improvements funded here are the necessary groundwork for any future station to
succeed. The city and CTA will continue that dialogue as ridership,
development patterns, and further increment generate at the 78 mature.
But a site with three existing rail lines within a 10-minute walk, five bus
routes, a new water taxi stop, protected bike lanes, bike
spaces, is not a transit-poor site.
It is the best connected stadium location the city has recently entitled.
The 78 transforms what has long been a vacant and unusable stretch of land
into an active year-round community and destination.
The current request will provide funds that will introduce a public plaza, new
riverfront access, bike paths, and a significant open green space, making the
site a welcoming environment for residents and visitors alike.
Beyond these public-facing improvements, the investment solves the complex
infrastructure challenges, grade changes, new roadways, and deep foundation
work that have blocked development here for half a century, laying the physical
groundwork for everything that follows.
Additionally, these agreements that have and will be entered into are legally
binding with corresponding city protections, compliance enforcement mechanisms,
and reporting requirements. The plan development calls for up to 10,000 new
residential units to be built on the 78.
With the approval of TIF funds, the amount of ARO units required to be built
doubles, increasing to 20%. There are legally binding
mandatory requirements. Additionally,
legally binding and enforceable covenants that run with these
agreements obligate the developer to meet enhanced MWBE
participation of 30% MBE and 10% WBE,
respectively, above the city standard 26 and six.
The agreements also require 50% of construction hours must go to city
residents at Illinois prevailing wages.
The agreements require delivery of approximately 2.75 acres
of new open and green space, and impose occupancy and operations covenants
that run throughout the incentive term.
The project also supports high-revenue city assets outside of property taxes,
like amusement taxes and sales taxes, new job creation, and aligns with the
city's broader investments in culture, entertainment, and destination-driven
development.
Long-term, the 78 is a major economic engine for Chicago.
$8 billion in private investment towards the site will ensure a vibrant mixed-use
district. Over time, the full project is expected to generate 10,000
construction and professional services jobs, and 5,000 permanent full-time
jobs once stabilized. Its economic contribution is significant,
estimated to be $2 billion per year in total economic impact, and
more than $140 million in annual tax revenue that benefits the entire city,
not just this district.
The project also, as I mentioned, includes up to 10,000 residential units with
20% ARO requirements if this TIF is approved.
These are designated as affordable under the enhanced Affordable Requirements
Ordinance obligation that attaches.
The plan also delivers a one-acre public plaza, and 2.75
acres of open green space. The 1,200-space city-owned parking garage,
nearly half of the total six acres of public open space will be delivered as part
of this phase. The authorization also includes a half mile of improved
public riverfront, in addition to new roadways and utilities, bikeways,
waterways, and pedestrian connections.
Community engagement has been a cornerstone of this process.
The plan before you reflects extensive input gathered from neighborhood leaders,
community organizations, and residents across the Third Ward and the adjacent
Chinatown and Bronzeville and South Loop and Pilsen communities.
As I will address in a moment, that engagement does not end with today's vote.
Supporting these RDAs today is critical to the future of the 78.
The project activates a long-vacant 62-acre site in a prime South Loop
location and unlocks $8 billion in private investment.
The infrastructure funded through the TIF reconnects this land to the city grid and
enables development across the full site.
The public benefits are immediate and concrete.
River access, new open space, enhanced MWBE commitments, new
non-property tax revenue streams, and a stabilized river's edge supporting a
privately funded river walk. And the long-term benefits are significant.
Affordable housing, community space, green space, 10,000 construction jobs,
and 5,000 permanent jobs, all of which stand on the foundation
of this investment being asked to be approved today.
For 50 years, this land has been a hole in the map of Chicago, too broken to build
on, but is too valuable to ignore any longer.
Today, you have before you agreements to spur $8 billion of investment, a team
building its own privately financed stadium, and a public investment of
$425 million that unlocks the potential with new public streets,
public riverfront, public plaza, and open space, a public garage that pays the
city back, and all protected by guaranteed maximum prices.
These are also encouraged with enforceable covenants for affordable housing, local
hiring, and minority and women-owned business participation that exceeds city
standards. For these reasons, and the many others presented in this
testimony, the Department of Planning and Development is in strong support of this
project and respectfully requests the committee's favorable consideration.
I thank the committee for its time.
In addition to myself and city representatives, we are joined by representatives
from Related Midwest, as well as the Chicago Fire and their respective council.
We are happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you, Jeff.
Really in-depth presentation. Before we go on, I'd like
to
add Alderman Cardona. He has
requested to participate remotely for reasons
stated under the provisions of Rule 59.
Can I get a motion to allow Alderman Cardona to participate?
So moved by Alderman Quezada. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
No. Alderman Sposato. In the opinion of the
chair, the ayes have it. And Alderman Cardona?
Okay, we'll move on.
Are there questions from members of the committee?
Okay,
starting with Vice Chair Conway.
Yeah.
Looking at the redevelopment agreements over the
weekend,
it appeared that the agreements don't actually obligate Related
Midwest to spend anything at all at the site. Would that be accurate?
I think that the
more accurate statement is that this investment will allow Midwest to
start investing in the site itself.
But not obligate them.
But they are not obligated under this authorization.
Now, during the community meeting, you said that revenues from the
garage will be lockboxed for the area. What did you mean by that?
Sorry, could you repeat? I couldn't hear that.
During the community meeting,
the Third Ward community meeting, which I appreciate the chairwoman inviting
members of the 34th Ward, too. You said that-
Revenue from the
parking structure will be lock-boxed for the area. What did you mean by that?
Yeah. So after accounting for operating
expenses and capital reserves, any excess proceeds would be
captured within an excess reserve account that would be utilized for any
future repairs and maintenance so that additional costs are not going to be borne
on the taxpayer or through future budgets.
But it wouldn't be allowed to
help other city services. It would merely be for that garage.
I think with time and understanding how the structure operates and what the
revenues in excess of those expenses would be, that there is
opportunity in the future to potentially allocate those funds to other purposes
that would assist with community development.
Is the lock-boxing that you spoke of in the redevelopment
agreement?
No, that is not in the redevelopment agreement, but will be part of the closing
process and establishment of the parking operator agreement.
Could you go to slide nine, please?
So of these expenses, could you
indicate... So I'm noting that we have two items on the agenda.
If you could identify which ones fall under item 15
and which ones fall under item 16.
Yeah. So on the infrastructure component budget,
item number one and number four would be the items of
item number 15 on the agenda, and all the other items would be part of item number
16 on the agenda.
So the 174... I may have these flipped over.
So the
approximately 250 million consists of the public access structure and
plaza and the river wall, and the 174 is mainly around
the streets and other right-of-way conveyance items.
And to what extent are those
bifurcatable, if that's a word.
Let's say this committee approve one and not the other, or approve one and table
the other.
The RDAs themselves, although are two distinct RDAs, they function
as one singular project, and really the separation is
essentially for the making sure that there's no commingling of tax exempt
or any other cost that could potentially affect the
issuance of tax-exempt TIF notes.
Okay, so item
16, those are the taxable items because that's like we're
working a business. Is that-
Those are the tax-exempt items. Those are the definitively known
tax-exempt items.
Well, surely the roads and that, that's tax-exempt, no?
The roadways, yes, they are.
By the way, I think item 15 is the 174 million.
Item 16 is the 250.
I apologize.
So I got them mixed.
So I may have reversed it.
But we're on the same page. Great.
Something
that you said that you may have misspoke.
It sounded like you said it's going to cost $100,000 a parking space.
I suspect you didn't mean that, but I don't-
No, that is not the cost.
Okay.
It's going to be about 68,000 per stall.
The 100,000 is what we've been given as the standard
average of what it costs to build a parking structure on a standalone basis
today.
Now, Madam Chairwoman, that's all my questions.
I'd obviously like to speak at length, but happy to defer to the
committee on questions if you'd be willing to come back to me at this point.
Well, this is for questions. If you have any additional questions?
I don't, but I would like to concur of the things for the record.
All right. Thank you. We'll move on. Alderman Villegas.
Oh, I'm sorry. Alderman Hall. I had you not here.
Alderman Hall.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. You mentioned it briefly, but I wanted to go back
to it. How many jobs are being created
as a result of the totality of the project?
Yeah. In total, once fully stabilized, the projection is 5,000
full-time positions.
Now, those are construction jobs?
No, those are businesses operating out of the 78.
Got you.
So there's about 10,000 construction jobs that would be associated with the full
development of the 78.
Got you. So 10,000 jobs
estimate construction jobs to construct a project.
Correct.
Then you're saying 5,000 to stay permanent?
Correct. Once the construction is completed.
Got you. Okay. The maintenance
costs
over the years, who's going to foot the bill for that? The roads.
In terms of which component? I got you.
So for example, the parking garage, the roads
leading in, so forth and so on. Everything that's being built is going to be needed
to maintain. Who's going to pay the maintenance on the things that we're
building?
So the city will be reconveyed the streets as well as the parking structure,
infrastructure, and those would be maintained by the city.
The public access area that sits on top of
the parking podium, as well as the riverfront, will all be
privately operated, maintained, and funded.
What was the last part again? I'm sorry.
And then the open public space that would sit on top of the podium infrastructure
in the parking garage, as well as the river wall, and then the river frontage
improvements will all be maintained privately.
Okay. So the riverfront part will be maintained privately.
Yes.
Why is that?
That is the standard operating procedure and a policy per the
city. So all other river walks that have been created on private land, those are
all maintained by those private developers, similar to the north on the south bank
site.
The TIF is repairing the
damaged seawall.
Got you.
Oh, okay. Yeah. The TIF funds will be used for the repair of the river
wall, but after that, it will be privately operated, maintained by the
developer.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The parking garage that was
mentioned in the project,
how many parking spots will be in the parking garage?
About approximately 1,200.
1,200. Got you. Who will be running the parking garage?
So the city will own the rights to the parking facility as well, the revenue
streams, but it would be subject to a future RFP or a
five for a qualified third-party parking operator that has
experience in similarly complex infrastructure and parking facilities.
Got you. So the revenue from the parking
garage, what's the projected revenue on that?
That's a question that I can answer is approximately the
revenue is going to be between $3 to $4 million.
However, to give you any further detail at this point in time could
potentially diminish the city's negotiating position as we're finalizing these
agreements. But the idea here is that revenues will cover both operating
expenses for the structure itself, fund
capital reserves, and hopefully have excess cash that we can then use
for future planning or other implementation.
Got you. So in concluding, I think you mentioned this, but I just want to
get it clear. The stadium is being built
with no roads as of right now.
That is correct.
No parking as of right now. So in the world's worst
doomsday situation, we will have a stadium that nobody could
get to,
nobody could park.
Well, in the worst doomsday situation, you would still have access through Wells
Wentworth.
Got you. But it would just be a-
And it would not have the podium infrastructure-
Got you
... to support vertical development.
It-
Okay
... would be up-
No connection from-
No connections
... Roosevelt Road or from Clark Street.
Got you. Okay. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess my first question would be, who in the
Department of Planning chose not
to brief me about this
proposed porting of TIF
from one district to another?
I don't think it was intentional not to brief you.
I'm sorry?
I don't think it was the intention not to brief you.
It was based on
controlling amounts of the Canal Congress TIF district.
So-
What we need to require for briefing is the 7.5%
interest in those districts
And so the standard that you apply is that
you only brief those folks you need to get to a
majority of TIF districts to port monies?
Not in terms of that. It's really about who owns the
7.5% that--
Interest within those TIF district is not necessarily about getting to a majority,
it's just based on the factual ownership in those TIF districts.
And so
are there other examples where
certain aldermen have not been briefed about a porting of TIF
money out of a district that they either used to entirely represent or
then partially represent?
I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head.
But I could go back in records and see if there's any examples I can point to.
So to be very clear, I count myself as one of
the people who think that this is going to be an incredible and
transformational project for the city of Chicago.
I don't take a lot of issue with much of the presentation
made here today,
and I think that Alderman Conway is right
in drawing a distinction between the two different
TIF asks here.
I would say there's a very strong argument to be made that we need
to invest in the infrastructure to support this site through
roadways and these sorts of things.
I think the parking garage is a separate issue,
and I think that the parking garage has become a lightning rod for different types
of advocates in the city.
But no matter what, I do think it is responsible to provide TIF support
to build the infrastructure necessary to support a massive investment
in a part of the city that needs it. And I also want to
compliment Chicago Fire and Mr. Mansueto and
their team for working with Related to try and
bring this stadium to our city. I think it'll be
an amazing positive addition.
All of that said,
and I thank you, Chairman, for reaching out to me last week
to walk through the high-level components of this deal with me.
Thank you for that.
What's troubling though is when I explained to Chairwoman Dowell
that I had been left completely in the weeds by the city departments
in charge of reviewing all this stuff and packaging all this stuff, and clearly you
put a lot of time and effort into this presentation.
I didn't start five days ago
when this was flagged for me.
Even after I told Chairwoman Dowell that no one had reached out to brief me on
this and walk me through the economics, and I've been here a while
and I'm pretty good at economics,
I still didn't get any outreach from the Department of Planning and Development.
Your commissioner, no member of your team, you didn't reach out.
No one did. I just confirmed with staff.
No outreach whatsoever. Zero. And so what might've been an initial
oversight has been now compounded
after the chairwoman of this committee was made aware I had not received any
briefing on this.
This is not about whether or not I was respected or not.
I don't really care about that. What I think is troubling is that
this is a very big deal, and we're talking about porting
hundreds of millions of dollars
from one TIF community area to another.
And we can talk about whether that's merited or not.
I would argue that some porting here is merited, for sure.
The bigger issue here is that there's an expectation among those property
owners who pay into a TIF district that they are in,
that that increment will be used to support and promote
economic development within the boundaries of that district.
And if you look at Illinois statute, that was the initial
intent of tax increment finance districts across the state of
Illinois.
And over the years and over many mayoral administrations,
this body has gotten creative in finding ways to move
money from one TIF to another. And again, I'm not saying that's
bad
But
to blow through major transparency
checkpoints along the way, and regardless of what
percentage an alderman's ward has in a district, the more
questions asked
in a public forum about a project, the better that is for
everybody. That's why transparency is important.
It's not just so that everyone who thinks they deserve a briefing gets a briefing.
That's not my interest here at all.
And what's frustrating is that this should be a project we are celebrating and
holding up,
hopefully as an example to other would-be developers around the country,
that we are going to try and help make these big projects work
for the greater good.
And so again, there is a troubling pattern
here with this administration,
especially on the most impactful deals the city is
looking at, to hide the football and
make people have to do forensic exercises to catch up on
information
on things that ought to be home runs.
Alderman-
So, I'm frustrated, Madam Chair.
Yeah.
I-
I would like to address something that you said.
I would not place the blame on the lack of
a briefing to you on the administration.
I will take the blame for that, because
after you and I talked and I realized you only had 2% of
the TIF, my mind started
working about how to work with my vice chair
to make sure that he would be comfortable with this.
So please accept my apology. It was not an administration-
Oh, I'll accept your apology if you're sorry.
Yeah. I'm saying this publicly.
Okay, but it happened.
I'm saying this publicly.
Well,
I appreciate you doing that, Madam Chair.
And I accept your apology.
Thank you.
That does not take away the frustration.
That does not take away how you feel.
I just wanted to acknowledge that it was
me after our conversation.
Okay. So, well, then I guess my hope would have been that our conversation would
have resulted in some outreach from the administration.
That does not take away the fact, though, prior to your outreach, the only
outreach,
there was no effort made by the administration to discuss this with
me. And a cautionary tale to my 49 colleagues, if
you are a minority stakeholder in a TIF district,
you better get more vigilant on these deals.
Because you may be left out from briefings because your percentage may
not be considered significant. And again,
I'm not hung up on percentages and who gets credit or not, or who
gets blame. It's that when you bring more people into the
fold, whether you want them in the fold or not, these deals usually
get better.
And so I'm flagging that as a concern for me.
My question is this, and it's the one that I asked you, Chairman, and
I'd like it if DPD could answer it for us on the
record.
All this money, these hundreds of millions of dollars being ported into this
TIF district to support this project, which is a good project, is
there any plan, any mechanism to, at some
future date, port back
monies to the TIF district that is being rated
to allow for future economic development and subsidy in the area where this money
was originally intended to be spent?
Well, before he answers, Alderman Vasquez had a point of information
clarification.
Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Yeah, related to the questioning of my colleague, and the mention of the
7%.
Is that an arbitrary number? Is that in municipal code? Is that a policy decision?
The threshold being 7%, how is that decided?
It's something that's been established with the Committee on Finance in previous
briefings. However, I do want to address and accept the concern that
both of you are raising today. I will make sure that regardless of
percentage on projects moving forward, that all 50 members of
this city council will be briefed in full and make sure that nobody is
excluded in the future.
This policy dates back not past this administration.
Right. But it's not-
The previous
... anything that's written in municipal code.
It's just-
No, it's not in the municipal code.
Okay. Yeah, because it's less about an individual, right?
Somebody else could be in these seats making these decisions.
It's about knowing what the threshold should be.
Because if everyone does have any share of a TIF, I think it makes sense for all of
those parties to then be consulted independent of what percentage.
So I was just curious as to how it was written. That was all. Thank you.
Thank you. Can we get to Alderman Riley's question?
In response to your question regarding
porting back into Canal Congress, at this time,
the increment is not sufficient to allow for that.
However, that is not necessarily something that's off the table once there's
additional increment that's generated from future development.
Because the current estimates for the
78 TIF,
under current circumstances, I think is pegging it around $7 million or so in
increment generated per year-ish.
Approximately $6.3 million.
So it's pretty low, and I acknowledge that.
Have you done any projections related to the site
post-development? So After Related does their good
work with their mixed-use development of the site, as well as
Chicago Fire getting the stadium up and running, what could that increment
look like in years one and two after the development site has been
delivered?
So in years one and two after this initial phase is delivered,
we're projecting approximately $17 million in new increment
per year for the next 15 years. That starts off at around $11 million and
grows to $21 million in the last year of the TIF district.
Okay.
Well,
again, I'll defer to Alderman Conway,
who has the majority portion of this ward, but
it seems as a matter of fairness that there should be some
effort and consideration given to
having not a complete payback, but some of this increment
being returned to the original TIF.
If were I a property owner paying into the TIF
on Canal,
I would not be thrilled to know that all this
money that was intended to improve that community area is being sent elsewhere.
And so to be able to reassure some of those folks that, hey, don't worry,
once 78's up and running and producing lots of increment,
there'll be an opportunity to get some of that back to support economic development
goals in your community area. That is something that
I would advocate we pursue.
I think that's definitely a possibility in the future once there's additional
increment to be had. I also think it's important to note that this
port does not affect any of the current investments that the city is making in
Canal Congress, and that future increment could potentially be used to benefit it
as well.
Thank you. And this is my final piece, Madam Chairman,
and I wanted to raise it because
this is another issue I think my colleagues, regardless of where you live in the
city, should be concerned about. It was represented to me
that Alderman Conway has been told, "Don't worry about your
TIF district being emptied out.
We can just fill it up with money from the LaSalle Central TIF,"
which is one that I represent in a very meaningful way.
Have those assurances been made by the city to my
colleague?
And I guess who now in the Department of Planning is in charge of deciding who gets
what TIF money and who gets to port what to where and when?
I think the conversation really revolved around the fact that LaSalle Central could
be leveraged in the future if necessary.
As you're well aware of, the LaSalle Central TIF district has not really been used
for private development or other economic development projects for quite some time
outside of the LaSalle Street Initiative, and has been mainly prior for
infrastructure investments.
Oh, no, I'm aware of the history because I've been here for 20 years, and that
district's been solely within my ward during that time, and I've
happily surplused it for the greater good of the city.
And also, we apply a very stringent but for test in my ward before a
dollar of TIF is given away. We have been very stingy with that money,
and I think that's good policy.
But I raise this as an issue. Please do not be
writing checks you can't cash from LaSalle Central TIF without having
conversations with those stakeholders.
This turns into a game of dominoes, and so I think we need
to have a reset with the department and
start briefing members of the council with all these different plans you have
floating in the ether, like porting from the central TIF to the
canal TIF to this TIF to that. We need an accounting of
these things, and I don't think that people in the bureaucracy at
DPD should be spending money they're not in charge of.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the time.
Thank you. Alderman Moore, followed by Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman. I just want to for the record, it slightly is based on
what Alderman Conway stated. Excuse me, get this mic
straight.
Looks like you need a new mic, huh?
Yeah.
TIF money.
TIF money for a new mic, yeah.
LaSalle Central.
I just want to clarify, because Chairman Dowell,
I know you're a person who
hears from your constituents and
generally hosts meetings. How many meetings did you have?
For the life of this project, I have had...
What?
Fourteen.
Fourteen? Okay, I just wanted to clear for the record, because I was aware of
some, but not all 14. And just for
my sake, and I know I've gotten a couple of calls, people saying the
community wasn't heard, but I
know that it was,
but I didn't know the number, and I just wanted to make sure that got on
record, and-
And I want to also add that I worked
to have meetings with other
adjacent aldermen who were interested in hosting meetings, and
some of those aldermen did hold their own meetings.
Okay. And I want to
at least commend related
for reaching out, not by force, but by
relational
African American contractors, people like in the African American Contracting
Association and others, to be involved in this project.
And I look forward to keeping an eye on this and making
sure that input is there. But this has been one
where people pick up the phone, call,
answer questions, and I can appreciate that.
So I just wanted to make sure that was on record. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Sigcho-Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the opportunity to raise some questions on
this item.
The 2019 agreement
included
a proposal where
the applicant will be responsible for new roads, infrastructure,
utilities, and then be reimbursed by
the TIF-generated income. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
This plan also included public transportation.
Is that correct?
The original plan did-
The original plan
... include the Metro realignment and the new CTA Red
Line station.
How long did it take to get to that point, to get to
an agreement? I'm just referring to the 2019 agreement, and there was a
subsequent agreement as well. How long does it take to get to
those-
Through planning commission and all that.
Are you referring to
coming to terms about developing a new Red Line station?
Yes.
Even just the Red Line station.
I believe that that process started as early as 2016 in
order to get to the final determination of the feasibility
of where and how a Red Line station could be built on the site.
So several years.
Yeah. Now, let me go back now to the
current agreement.
So the current agreement now includes
a sweeping $287 million from the Canal and Congress
TIF that Alderman
Conway was referring to
in order to create that infrastructure, not to be repaved
by the TIF-generated income, but to take it from
other
TIF that somehow will have to honor those
commitments, the dollars that came in and that were paid by
people within that district,
we'll have to figure out a way to make sure that their
dollars also generate income. And if it is taking away from other
TIFs, we're going to have to figure out a way to
compensate for this
project. Is that correct?
I guess I'm not fully understanding the angle in terms of compensation.
Were you just talking about repayment?
Well, I'm actually trying to understand also the compensation thing, because like I
said, there's $287 million that are going to be
taken from the Canal and Congress TIF.
I heard Alderman Conway and Alderman Riley
talking about this. Because those dollars that in the
previous agreement were going to be reimbursed by the
generation of their own TIF dollars, now they're going to have to be
generated and compensated
from some another TIF and somewhere else.
Is that correct?
If
compensation into the Canal Congress is what you're talking about, the only way
to do that is to create new revenue that could potentially be utilized in the
future to do that. I think it's also important to point out that
the 2019 and the 2022 amendment
is not a feasible project in today's environment.
The cost for something that was originally ascribed to in
2019 is going to be nearly double the cost, and
the development plan had to completely be
re-conceptualized because of the effects that happened
since then. So yes, I do agree with you that in
factual matter, that those redevelopment agreements did fund
infrastructure and would be paid back through that generation.
But the circumstances that exist today no longer allow for
that particular development plan to move forward successfully.
And today is this recalibrated plan that provides the
additional funding that's necessary to get that revenue generation going
as of today.
Understood. And I used to represent this area.
That's what I'm talking with
some knowledge about that. And also because
this public transportation piece was an important part.
In fact, when I was alderman elect, before I even take on this, I
was opposing to the mega developments receiving TIF dollars because of this
precise reason. Because oftentimes the conversation of
community benefits is an afterthought.
And how we're going to replenish this in terms of those who actually paying with
the TIF dollars also seem to be not clear.
So the issue of the new concept
around public transportation to me is important.
Also the benefits. I understand that some of the community benefits
agreement come
surrounding this new public parking lot.
Is that correct? Is this somehow we're going to be
replacing public transportation that is no longer in the plan
with another public structure or benefits
coming from this public garage? Is this correct?
No, that's not the intention at all.
This is not a policy decision of favoring vehicular traffic or parking
lots over public transportation.
It's really meant to be the recalibration in order to get this project
started so that in future phases, we can potentially think about
incorporating future public transit stops in the 78 or in the
near vicinity.
So this is what I want to get this point across.
So it took several years for us to develop a public
transportation plan, and that seem to me that it only took
months to scratch all of that and then offer a new
concept. That's what I want to go back
to. It took years to get to a public transportation concept,
and all of this has been changing almost, it's changed
drastically. But how did it come to the decision that public
transportation is no longer needed?
And then how do we evaluate that
new concept?
So as you're also aware that this new plan was approved in
September of 2025. So there had been multiple months of
work recalibrating this plan prior to the TIF allocation
request that's before you today.
And let me just jump in here. And when
DPI, which was the original
use that was going to be on that property, pulled
out and left the land with
no catalyst for its redevelopment.
That's also a component of what happened.
I think it's also the recalibration of what the major drivers and anchors
of the original plan would be, would be commercial office space users.
So public transportation, in order to induce that type of anchor tenant
to locate at the 78, was a necessary component in order to
activate that particular project.
Obviously, that never happened, so that's possibly part of the
problem of why that master plan development never worked in the first
place or went through in the first place.
What I can say is that based on this investment and the
additional demand generations that will be created from future phases,
there is going to be most likely a necessity for public
transportation. But that planning has already
been started through conversations with the community.
Hmm.
So this is where
my question is. I think that we need
to have a conversation about new revenue, because this should have
somewhat to be replenished, especially when Chicago public schools have a deficit
of $700 million, right? We do need to have the conversation. This is separate.
But in terms of
the public transportation piece,
why don't we invest in public transportation?
We know that we're going to have thousands of people going to the stadium.
We're going to have at least 10,000 residential units.
And I want to ask also, how are we going to get to that point?
Because it's being thought out as
clearing the pathway, right, to get a longtime affordable housing
piece. But without a lot of details.
So to me, it's like, why we're not actually discussing that on the front end, and
also, because this issue, the 10,000 units of affordable housing,
we allocated some TIF dollars back in 2019.
I'm yet to see one of affordable housing.
So-
And we won't see any if we don't have any roads, any sidewalks,
any underground utilities, any electrical, any
sewer lines, any water lines. So we need to have
the infrastructure in place so that we can attract
the residential that we'd like to see on that site.
I just had to throw that in. Can we go back to that other slide on the
transportation?
The list of bus stops. Yeah.
Go ahead and explain that.
So also as it relates to transportation, the current needs right
now should be met. There's three CTA
stations within close proximity, about five bus
routes. And again, based on what will be created here
on future phases,
those can be amended. These are not fixed points in time.
There could be additional accommodations that are made for bus routes to be
rerouted to the site, additional
rerouting during game days. Again, those are all things that can
happen. But as the chair said, without this initial
investment, none of that is even going to be on the table for a
discussion.
Well, let me then-
Alderman, I'd like to also add that we've also begun some
conversations with CTA, specifically around the
24 Wentworth
line-
Mm-hmm
... to see if there's a way to
increase more service there. So those conversations regarding
transportation, public transportation, are ongoing.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
Yes, Alderman Martin, point of information.
Is there a scale
key? I just don't know what
those circles connote. What do those circles connote from a
distance perspective?
Oh, in terms of the distance?
That's right.
I believe each one of those is a quarter mile.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Alderman Lopez, Cedra Lopez's question.
Yeah. So
what are the pathways then? Because I hear the conversations are starting, but
we're putting this money on the front end, putting $425 million on the front end.
What are the pathways, especially legal pathways?
Because again,
to me-
God bless you.
Bless you.
So to me, I think it's very important that we have those pathways very clearly
defined. Otherwise, these plans keeps coming,
scratching, new plan, scratching.
Public transportation cannot be an afterthought.
Housing cannot be an afterthought.
I do think that we need to talk about those things in legal terms,
right? Because I think that this-- I agree with the chairwoman.
I think we want to see something of the benefit of the surrounding areas,
but not at the expense of the surrounding areas, because these
conversations, I do think, need to have clear pathways for public
transportation, for housing. The impact on surrounding neighborhoods
is significant, and I do want to see what are those pathways clearly.
I know the conversations are starting, but what are those legal
pathways that we can say today we're putting in that will
require Related Midwest and the
Chicago Fire to fulfill those benefits.
Those are $425 million of public funding that went in that
could have gone to public education and other things.
How are we going to tell the residents, including the nearby TIFs, that we are
advocating for their public good for $425 million that need to
return not only for the developer and the stadium, but to the
people who are paying those taxes?
Well, within the plan development itself, there are legal provisions that
do allow for the creation of a CTA station.
So that is the first step of all of these steps, is that there
is a legal basis for the creation of a CTA station.
The next pieces come with demand analysis, making sure that a CTA
station is going to be able to fulfill and be useful for all of these
individuals without having to create an exorbitant cost
allocation for those same taxpayers that you're talking about.
I think that the addition here is that feasibility study, site selection, and then
additional understanding of what is actually feasible and
constructable in what areas of the 78 or in the close proximity
to that would need to have to occur as well.
Well, I'm still not hearing specifically, right,
shouldn't there be like some sort of benefits agreement here that we'll put this in
paper? Shouldn't there be here something that says, "Look, if you don't build these
units by a certain date," as we're making our commitment
early on to make sure that infrastructure's there.
Shouldn't there also be penalties in case the housing is not being built, in
case these plans get scratched again?
Because I think taxpayers are on the hook once again, and if the
plans change, it seems like we are putting all the
money up front, we're taking all the risks for a billionaire and
a major developer to reap all the benefits without any potential
consequences if they don't fulfill the agreement.
Or, people who will have to decide, "Well, we put
$425 million just to see what
perhaps we can get in return."
Well, if the developer doesn't fulfill their obligations under the agreement and
leaves half-built infrastructure, the city, after them electing not to
do it, would have clawback features of all TIF dollars that were expended.
I
think that the appropriate response here is that the city has no agreement with the
Fire. That's a privately financed, privately risked, privately
driven undertaking that we can't compel them to because we
do not have any legally binding agreements with them.
Although I do know that they have been extreme supporters of the community, having
invested in the West Side into a 40-year commitment with
their facility on the West Side. They're also providing $8 million of
housing subsidy in that area as well.
So to say that there's no commitment or
recourse to these individual groups, I think is not giving
the full scope of the agreements in front of us.
Let me just-
Mr. Lopez, I have a lot of people here.
Yeah.
Do you want a round two?
I've got a round two, and just let me end with this, just to say on the record,
right? Just want to make it on the record.
Yes, the developer and the Fire are putting money, private money, but they
also $425 million that they're putting for the public, and
I'm not hearing specific those benefits, and I'm not hearing
conversations about new revenue at a time where Chicago public schools and other
entities are needing all this public funding.
I do think it's a mistake if we don't put this in writing clearly,
because we've seen time after time how these plans have changed and these
concepts have been evolving, again, at the expense and not at the benefit of the
public.
Thank you.
Alderman
Villegas, followed by Alderman Lee.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff, a couple of
questions.
The VBE goal. You know I was going to go there.
Is this incorporated into this RDA?
It is not a mandatory requirement of the RDA.
Okay. How do we make it part of it? We've had this discussion multiple times.
We've proposed language. It's in the
code around
having 3% for veteran businesses.
This council passed that
requirement unanimously, and this has been multiple projects that
we've talked about to require veteran companies to be part of this.
How do we get this incorporated into this agreement?
As a matter of legally binding in this agreement, that would have to be
an amendment to the code itself, because what you're referring to on the VBE-
Okay, but we've talked about this multiple times.
When are we going to sit down and talk about amending it, so that way moving
forward, I don't have to ask this question?
Because this is a project I think is great for the city, but I also want to make
sure, and I appreciate Related increasing the goal from 26 and 6
to 30 and 10. But I also want to see veteran-owned firms that this
body has passed the ordinance unanimously after two pilot
programs to see them incorporated into these opportunities.
When are we going to do that? And is it too late to do that now for this
project?
For this project, it probably is. However, going forward, as we've had
conversations about this-
Okay. So we need to go forward
... the important to making sure that that gets codified in the specific
laws that require us to compel people through redevelopment agreements,
not Department of Procurement service contracts.
Okay, so we have a meeting Wednesday.
Is it possible to introduce something
Wednesday, so that way we can move forward and get it voted on?
I would not be the best person to ask that.
I could definitely-
You represent DPD. Can DPD work with me to get an ordinance together
that satisfies the language that you want in order to get this moving forward, so
that way, as we get other
big projects going, that we can incorporate that community for
these projects?
Let me separate two things here.
Okay.
For
the legislation that you're actively talking about, yes, we will work with you as
well as the Department of Law. I can't make any representations here that that can
actually happen, but I am willing to work with you on that particular piece.
Go back and talk to your commissioner about it.
I obviously have to talk through not just Department of Law, Commissioner
Boatright, as well as any other stakeholders that this would affect.
So again, it's not just me being able to commit to that and changing the law
itself.
Good.
However, I do think that Related and their experience
will be able to incorporate any of these concerns within the procurement
process for the funding for the
subcontracting for this. That has not-
So-
... been completed yet, so I think it would be worthwhile to raise
this with the development team and-
So we're going to raise it with the development team here.
So I see Kurt Bailey from Related Midwest.
Can you address the veteran?
Yeah. So Kurt Bailey with Related Midwest.
Yes, Alderman, we're happy to make that commitment on the project and work with you
to find the requisite firms to do the work.
Yes, and I appreciate that. So no, I understand that, that's for this project.
But we've had this
discussion multiple times. I would like, after this meeting, for us to
sit down, get language together to introduce it by Wednesday, so that way we can
move forward and have this discussion and codify it, so that way I'm not having to
ask this question. I don't want to ask this question over and over, especially from
a body who's voted unanimously to include that in future procurement
opportunities. So I got that. I appreciate it.
And then,
Does the mayor
in support of this project?
I believe he is, yeah.
He is, right. So he's in support of a
$400-plus million TIF,
and also the $201 million that went to the Foundry.
Is that accurate?
I think that's accurate.
That's accurate, right. So I'm just asking because I'm thinking back to 2019
when there was this big campaign,
and quote from the mayor, who was the lobbyist for CTU at the
time, and it said, "Lincoln Yards and other TIFs," quote, "are playgrounds for the
rich."
Here we are supporting a project that does exactly what TIF dollars are
meant to do, spur economic development.
And so I'm thinking about had that campaign not been waged,
and potentially
shovels in the ground in Lincoln Yards would've created a ton of property tax
revenue, which would've helped the city.
So I'm in the twilight zone here thinking about how there was a
campaign waged against this, and here we are, this mayor and his
allies opposed
TIFs being used for private development, and he introduced
the ordinance for that. But I just wanted to put that on record because the
hypocrisy is just outstanding. And it makes me laugh
because it's easy to campaign.
It's a little harder to govern, and so I
appreciate that.
How much revenue in property tax is this going to
generate once this project's completed?
Projections are about $140-ish million
per year once $8 billion have been invested.
So that's about $72 million a year that's going to
CPS.
Once the TIF district expires and everything is repatriated to the taxing
bodies, yes.
Yeah. So that's pretty good. That's pretty good money.
One more question.
Alderman Vegas, you're not on your square today.
Huh?
You've got this big pause between your questions.
Yeah, I know.
It's not like you.
Because again,
I'm just fascinated at the fact that here we are
seven years later
talking about having passed TIFs for
two projects that prior to COVID would've potentially created
revenue and put us in a better position.
And again, I
laugh at this because
these two TIFs for the Foundry and this 78 are being
utilized exactly how they're supposed to.
So I'm glad to support this project.
Madam Chair, this is a great project for the city, a great project for the ward.
It's a great opportunity for small businesses, and can't wait to see it
when it's actually completed and all these people are
visiting the city.
I like the fact that the water taxes are included, and
this is going to be a great project. So anyway, I'll think about another question.
You'll think about another question-
Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair
... and bring it up. Yeah.
But I would urge support of this project.
All right. Alderman Lee, followed by Alderman
Vasquez.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, no green light. That was kind of tricky.
There we go.
Thanks for the opportunity. Jeff, I want to thank you for joining the community
meeting that I held for the 11th Ward residents on Friday
evening. It was probably not your idea of a good time for a Friday
night, but appreciate you hanging out with us.
I think a lot of really good questions were asked, and
appreciated your time.
I've heard from a lot of different community folks
about their concerns and questions
about the 78 development in general, in particular
the Fire stadium being built, and now this TIF
allocation to pay for the parking lot as
well as the much needed infrastructure
to make this site more viable for future development, which I think as we've talked
about today, we want this to be successful at the end of the
day. That notwithstanding, there are a few things that I do want
to ask related to the parking lot itself.
I know that
you've mentioned to me and to the body today
that the agreement for the parking lot
will
need to be finalized as a condition of closing, correct?
I just want to ask a question about timing.
Can you go back to the slide, and I don't remember which one it was, but it showed
timing for the different phases of completion.
My specific question is,
should this pass today, when will the parking lot be completed?
Is this the one that you were talking about?
No, it was one that actually had
a list of-
Of the project budget?
Yeah.
I know, you've got so many slides. You probably have nightmares about these now.
2031.
Yeah. It mentioned years when things were going to be completed.
2031.
2031?
Thirty-one.
So the parking
garage will not be completed until 2031.
No.
Can you talk about the interplay of the surface lots and the
planned temporary surface lots, because I know that they are meant to be temporary.
How many spots are planned currently for the surface lots
while the parking structure is being erected?
Yeah. So to answer your question, the parking structure is going to be delivered
hopefully in tandem with the stadium itself.
So that would be summer of 2028.
So not 2030?
No. So additional improvements down the road were given time so
that we can complete the main phase one priorities, and then at a
later date, incorporate those into the infrastructure components.
I'll also say that the temporary parking lot that was depicted here
is still up for consideration. It's not necessarily something that could be
incorporated into the plan, but it is a option.
And we are not paying, none of the TIF dollars are paying for the surface lots?
No, absolutely not.
Okay. I want to get that on the record so there's no misunderstanding about that.
My request would be, because I don't think that this has necessarily been
addressed, and I know there's active negotiations going on, but when the
city's parking structure, the one that we'll own and operate,
is able to be fully functional and operational,
those surface lots shouldn't be competing with the city's ability to
generate revenue. So I'm not sure where the conversation's been about that, and
again, I appreciate that things are still being negotiated, but I did want to just
get that into the conversation here.
Again, since those are optional improvements that the developer may undertake,
we also don't see them as necessarily competing with the 320 days
of public municipal operations. The most likely
pathway for any individuals who are going to want to park on-site is going to be in
a covered, protected, and climate-controlled area for their cars.
So we don't necessarily think that it's going to be a huge driver of
detracting demand from the structure itself.
Understood.
And then,
we've talked a lot today about
folks have mentioned the 2019 plan, which literally doesn't exist anymore today.
I just kind of want to remind everybody,
when I started as an alderman, one of the first meetings I had was
with CDOT on menu. And at that time,
I'm going to get to it, I promise,
a green alley, a concrete alley was $250,000 on our
menu. Today, it's close to $400,000.
The cost of material, the times that we live in, the cost of labor, all
of this,
it means something different to me when people say time is money,
because
delays further exacerbate costs.
And I know that right now under this agreement, we have
it locked down that these would be the highest prices things would be
in terms of contracting.
Can you talk about the consequences of a delay?
Look, I think a lot of good points have been raised today about
transparency and notification. This is not a small amount of money at
the end of the day. I've had the benefit of being involved in this,
thanks to the advocacy of Chair Dowell,
where
I have 15% of this TIF, and I don't have any of the 78, but
obviously, it borders Ping Tom Park, the northern part of the ward,
and Chinatown's one of the most affected areas.
Based on whatever development's going on there, we're going to get the
spillover of all of the traffic concerns that are over there as
well.
I just totally lost track of my question.
What are the consequences of delay at this point?
You
said earlier that we're trying to deliver this by a certain date, and that I
think you said in your comments earlier that the intention is for
construction to begin on these pieces funded by the TIF
to begin fourth quarter this year?
Yes. That's the intention and hope.
To your point about any delays, that only causes more uncertainty, additional
costs, and the inability to have a concrete plan to move forward
with. I think the other piece here is that all of these will be subject to
GMP contracts as well. So if we are delaying things and
those costs go up, again, the current macroeconomic or global
perspective have real impacts on how things are being priced today.
And with the uncertainty that's going on, you don't know potentially what those
consequences could be from a cost perspective.
Your example of the street costs, from the 2019
project, that's probably going to balloon just on the CPI basis by
35%, plus the additional financing costs that
were not available at that time. So I think at the prevailing
rates in 2019 would've been around like 5 or 5.5%. Today, it's 6.5.
So,
any delay will
obviously have consequences based on what the uncertainty of any kind of
environment would bring to just the pricing aspect of this, let
alone the demand drivers that might have a consequence as well.
I'm going to give you a breather. Is there anybody from CDOT here that can answer
questions? Oh.
Yes. Pat.
Hi.
Good afternoon.
So question about the south end of
the property. Can you go to the map with the
traffic
flow
with the Well Street closure for game day? That's the one I'm interested in.
So obviously, my concerns from the
community are about the traffic that's going to be flowing down,
going south on the Wells Wentworth Connector,
dumping out onto a pretty narrow street at the end of the day.
You come out at 18th and Wentworth.
The 18th Street bridge we know is going to be under construction for a certain
amount of time. It needs the work, but it's also still
a two-lane
bridge that goes towards the 18th Street on-ramp
for the Kennedy. And if you want to go south to the Dan Ryan, you really do
have two options. You have Clark Street, you go east, and if you go straight,
you've got Wentworth. I don't know how many of you have
gone to Chinatown on a nice evening, any day of the week these days.
There's a lot of traffic. And the thought of even
more traffic coming through is a real
concern to my community. Can you talk, Ann,
about just what the plans are for traffic management over here,
and will this southern part of the traffic be limited
somehow to
rideshare only, or is this still going to be a point of
egress out of the parking lot?
Yes.
Good afternoon, Alderman Lee. Ann Zang,
managing deputy at CDOT.
Can you bring the mic closer to you, your mouth, Ann?
There you go.
Yeah. Oh, afternoon, Alderman Lee. Thank you for your question.
Anne Zang, managing deputy at CDOT.
And yes, understood there are questions regarding traffic, and something
that we looked at during the PD process, particularly going south
towards 18th.
As far as limitations to rideshare and
other vehicles, that's something that we can have that discussion
along with DPD and developer,
as well as your community.
As far as construction in the area, we do anticipate, yes,
that there will be work on the 18th Street Bridge,
and that we'll need to take a closer look at some of the
egress options. As you mentioned,
it is fairly constrained at Clark, and it's something
that we will work together with you on that.
Anne,
because we haven't talked about this, and I'm sorry to just spring this on you, but
do we know when the plans to start construction on the 18th
Street Bridge will begin, and where the overlap is going to be?
Because that's going to be a really big project.
That's not going to be something that happens overnight.
When
do you anticipate it'll begin, and how long? What's the duration of the project?
Our typical bridge projects are
around two years.
And
as far as the status, the 18th Street Bridge is still under
design currently, and it's something that we're going through the approvals
process. So it'll be a few years out before we get to the construction
process,
procurement and construction.
I guess this could still be for CDOT.
The Wells Wentworth Connector to the south dumps out right in front of Ping Tom
Memorial Park Field House. We get a lot of
pedestrian and cyclist traffic in this area.
I know that the cycling community citywide, not just
in the 11th Ward, is really keen on having
access to the Wells Wentworth Connector.
Got these beautiful raised bike lanes on both sides on Wells
that sadly aren't being used right now, and I know that it's an active
construction site.
With the field house being right in front of
the
Wells Wentworth Connector, I've gotten concerns raised by many
community members of what, if any, physical
safety infrastructure can be provided over there.
Just with the amount of car traffic that's going to be coming through, there's no
physical barrier
to prevent somebody from just jumping the curb, if you will, and
hitting pedestrians, or there could be accidents over there as well.
So, I'd like to ask if anything like that has been
contemplated. I know it's not necessarily part of this TIF
request, but I would be remiss not to ask the question on behalf of my
community.
That's certainly something that we can look at, especially at the southern end,
knowing that there was also a request to look at the
traffic signal there. So it'll be part of a comprehensive review of that
intersection.
Yeah. Is it possible at all for
the Wells Wentworth Connector to
be open, even if it was just pedestrian and cyclist
traffic on one side of the street? I know it's an active construction site, and we
want to
get that done.
But I'm wondering what, if any, opportunity there is
for the public to be able to use this safer path to get
downtown north-south, between the South Loop Chinatown
into Downtown.
That's something that we're collaborating with the public safety departments and
the developer on to ensure, as you mentioned, that it is
safe. That's the paramount priority for us, to
ensure that
it can be opened safely and something that we can work with you on, Alderman.
Right.
And Alderman Lee-
Yeah
... I'll add that
you and I are simpatico on the opening of the
Wells Connector site, so
we'll lock arms and work with CDOT together on that.
Absolutely. The one
other question I'll ask, I think that
Alderman Viega started to touch on it.
I love that there's another water taxi spot here, because
I
watch the traffic for the water taxi coming into Ping Tom Park, and it's great how
many more people are using the water taxi.
Something that came up during our meeting on Friday, Jeff, was just
about more...
What's the term that they use? Will there be
a
boat launch or a place where kayaks can pull up too, not just people in a
water taxi or with yachts? I think it's really important that
the river walk be accessible to as many people as possible,
and I'm not comfortable with the idea that only people with yachts
can afford to use the waterway to access.
Well,
Jeff Cohen, deputy commissioner.
I can assure you that people with yachts are not really the targeted
demographic for the changing of the river edge.
So not only will it incorporate a river taxi, there will be a human scale
boat launch, as well as a naturalized river's edge towards the southern
frontage of the river wall. So of that
1,450 linear square feet, approximately
200 to 300 towards the southern edge will be naturalized
riverfront. Also, there is a kayak launch within Ping
Tom Park itself that also can be utilized.
Right. And just to be clear, everything that is
requested
between the two TIF agreements today, or the two TIF requests,
are intended to be delivered in time or
simultaneously with the opening of the stadium. Is that correct?
That is the intention, yeah. So to your point, any further delay would
impact that timeline delivery.
And what
other opportunities are there for continued
conversation about community concerns, just about the
impact of development on the 78 property?
This is phase one. Clearly, I would imagine
that Related wants to further develop the land
there. What does that look like from a practical perspective when they
have
some new plans to-
Yep
... let's say, add buildings to the top of the podium or add construction to
the south?
What I can say is that this is the beginning of that conversation, so all future
phases will be subject to what's called a part two review as part of the planned
development. So further communication, community feedback,
aldermanic feedback can go into guiding what those future phases look
like at this time.
Yeah.
And the last thing, and then I'll stop here.
And thank you, Chair, for indulging me.
I think we've heard quite a bit today just about timing.
I know this was approved back
September of last year. From the
time of the introduction, I know it takes that much time.
I would just encourage all of us to
give the public the due time, and all of our colleagues at the same time,
sufficient time to review things.
I
feel better about this after all of the conversations.
I appreciate, Alderman Dowell, you inviting me and my community to your
town hall, and then having the opportunity to have a subsequent
meeting. I'm going to continue to meet with my community to
voice their concerns here. But appreciate it, and
we'll be supporting the request today. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lee. Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Vasquez, thank you for giving Alderman Irvin
your slot. Alderman Irvin, followed by
Alderman Vasquez, followed by Alderman O'Shea.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And also,
thank you for your engagement around this
issue. I told you when we were remapping that
this would
be a nice
conversation to have. But I'll say this, though.
This redevelopment in an area of
the southwest corner of the
loop
is the catalyst that we need in that area.
For the life of me, I don't understand why the same level
of development that occurred
in the area on State Street further south had not
occurred on the western side of that same
area on the other side of the river.
There's a lot of opportunity down there, a lot of area
for density, a lot of area to create affordable housing, a lot
of area to do lots of things other than surface level type of
transactions. So this is the type of development that I
believe will catalyze a lot of the changes that
should occur in the area. When we look across the river, we see the
site that is also being eyed for Northwestern Hospital and
some other development that'll take place in that area.
So I believe that this is actually a pretty solid use
of TIF money and being one of the, for lack of a
better term, donor TIFs to the area.
This is what, as Alderman Villegas stated, is what the TIF's designed to
do, to spur economic development.
So again,
I appreciate the work that you've done and all of the collaboration that you've
given to all of us in the area around us, even though
the site does sit in the Third Ward.
And that's why I thought it made the most sense for you
to do this because you had the people in that specific area and
who were most directly impacted by what was going to
happen on that particular site. But I definitely appreciate all the engagement that
you've given, all the conversations, especially with Related, the
Chicago Fire, and others that'll be part of this particular project.
But again, we cannot get this done if we don't have the infrastructure, and that's
what we're talking about today, creating the infrastructure so that you can
have the type of development that we would like to
see in the area. As Juan stated, no sidewalks, no sewers,
no roads, no project. And this is exactly what these
dollars are spurred to do. Now, granted, I understand the concerns
about the porting back and forth, but I do believe that porting in this
instance will generate a stronger return for the
areas that are donating to this
project. Because as I look at
the Congress Canal, that area
definitely could use more people in it so that we can
drive and spur more development and generate more tax dollars.
Now when the TIF expires again, that's the increment that'll be released to
everybody, which hopefully will drive down property taxes for
the city in its entirety. So again, thank you for your collaboration and
definitely support the project. And we look forward to it not only
spurring the development on that side of the river, but across the
river, and as we continue to move down Roosevelt Road and
continue to generate greater projects. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Irvin. Alderman Vasquez, followed by Alderman...
I'm sorry. I got
Alderman Laspada.
Sure. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the presentation as it gives a better sense
of what the development is and where we do stand to benefit.
Where I think to the points mentioned by Alderman Villegas, Irvin, and others,
it does make sense as far as the intent of what TIFs are for, and it does transform
an area that is clearly an opportunity for growth.
I think I have a lot more questions related to process transparency
reporting, because I think that's where, for me personally, I was getting kind of
frustrated in how it's been playing out.
And I want to find ways to make the process better because I think future
larger developments might have same challenges as far as how we're engaging.
So you mentioned, Deputy Commissioner Cohen, kind of
that what the intended purpose was initially, and then there was a
pause and re-pivot. Right. COVID kind of changed the thought
process on what's possible. When would you say the decision was
made to change that plan into what it is currently now?
Well, I think that plan had probably started,
obviously several months, if not years, prior to it.
When that exact date is, I don't have that in front of me, but I can
definitely get that exact timeframe through the chair if that's necessary for you.
Yeah. Because I think that's part of the concern, that it's very
reasonable to look at the landscape and say, "Hey, things have changed.
We have to make different decisions." I think the way that gets communicated to
members of the council and to the public is important, because in absence of that,
it might feel like any deal that's being made could be subject to just, "Hey, we're
going to change our mind," without that proper communication.
And I think not doing that properly on the front end creates more
tension as you get closer to trying to get something passed.
So I think, yeah, that'd be one.
Similarly, are there other developments that we're looking
at that similarly have been paused and there's a repivot
because of the change after COVID or anything?
Are there large developments of this magnitude where decisions have been made to
change the plan and maybe that hasn't been communicated to the council or the
public yet?
Well,
the other plan that is in kind of a major development that we do
intend to, based on the feedback that I've received, make sure that all alders are
involved with is
the revamp of the former Lincoln Yard site into Foundry.
Yeah.
So taking these comments, I will definitely make sure to make sure that we are
doing what you're requesting.
Yeah, I think, one, engaging the folks in the TIF, I think that threshold
being a positive thing, I think I understand why that should potentially
change. I think to your point about the Lincoln Yards one, there are members of
this council, myself included, once we got elected, block
LaSalle Street to try to block any level of TIF or what was happening
there. And so,
I would argue you need more in overcommunication of what those changes are going to
be for that one in particular, because the public isn't going to
understand why things were changed.
And so you have to overcommunicate for folks who are working every day and not
tuning into hearings to know what those changes are, right?
Because that makes it much more challenging for us.
Similarly,
with the impacts of AI on administrative work, office work,
all types of work across the globe,
are there considerations as to how that might impact what projections are as far as
office space use? Or, "Hey, here's where we might think funds are coming," and then
realize, nope, we're in a whole different world.
In terms of the effect of AI on the office user
or job creation, I know that there are obviously
conversations out there or pieces that say it could have a huge impact.
I don't necessarily know if, or I don't have a crystal ball to know whether or not
that would continue. I think you're starting to also see kind of a pullback in
the efficacy of what AI was potentially thinking about doing and how those
jobs would be replaced in terms of menial tasks and data entry.
But I think it's too early to tell to really give you a definitive answer of
how AI will affect the future demand for office space on the 78
specifically. In general, it's something that's obviously out there as
a policy consideration and how it would affect things.
But I think it's a little too early to tell what the actual efficacy of
AI could potentially be for the office use environment.
Yeah. I do think conversations largely should start looking at what impacts those
might be, because similarly, you might find yourself flat-footed in absence of
that. I think there's a number of things related to any of these
large projects that are challenging, right?
The timeline it takes from concept to
decision-making, to design, to construction, to implementation are years.
So when you make a decision, you might find yourself at the construction phase with
a completely different world and neighbors who don't even remember when you made
the decision to begin with. And I've seen it even in a smaller microcosm with
small traffic changes that the communication just isn't there on the front end,
which makes it challenging for us.
So I think
the interest in my part of this conversation and many others is how we fix that
process.
I got next question is-
Can I-
Yeah
... interrupt? Just one thing.
I wanted to just also acknowledge that the new plan was
brought forward at Plan Commission as well.
Yeah. So for those of us-
That's
a piece of the transparency portal.
Yeah, I think that's absolutely fair.
I think for members who aren't on the commission,
or we may not always get the information, so it's just forethought for future
ones.
Got it.
The parking lot itself,
and pardon my ignorance,
is it affected at all, or does it have any impact on the parking meter deal in and
of itself because we're creating parking?
No, it does not. There's a specific carve-out within the concession
agreement that contemplates this
exact situation. So this parking structure is not subject to the
terms and conditions of the concession agreement.
Got it. That's great to know. I think you
mentioned something earlier in an answer that was a little
concerning to me that I've got questions.
When we talked about the parking lot itself, and any
excess cash or revenue, you said, "Hopefully we have excess
cash."
Hope's not a strategy at all. So I'm just curious as to where the
anticipated excess cash or revenue, what projections are we talking about?
I think you might have mentioned something about not sharing too much because you
might be in the middle of negotiation, but us who have to vote on this project
should have a better understanding on what we anticipate a return to look like,
as well as the black box concept, where the funds are going.
There's a lot there that's ambiguous in a way that I think makes us feel less than
comfortable.
So in terms of the excess cash, maybe I need to re-qualify that
statement. It's excess cash in excess of paying for operating
expenses and capital reserves. So that additional cash
that would be available would essentially be kept in this escrow, so to
speak.
Sure.
The current kind of situation in terms of where those negotiations are, are left
to be somewhat ambiguous, knowing that without this approval, none of that
actually exists. So then we can start codifying some of these terms
into the redevelopment agreement that will be recorded eventually.
So I think that now is the time that we want to,
if we can get the approval here,
be able to incorporate other considerations that the community has brought up.
I know there's been conversations about potential parking validation
programs or utilizing the space for overflow.
So again, we've been engaging with communities to hear what they have to say
about how this should be operated, and there isn't any
prohibition of what can happen at this facility prior to getting the whole
entire deal finalized.
I think some of the concern related to that is we're being asked to vote on the
money on the front end, and it's like, "Hey, we'll figure out the terms later,"
without a need for us to vote on that at all, right?
That is correct.
So
I'm just Chicago. Somebody's asking me for money without me knowing the terms of
the deal, I got way more questions.
And I think that's where a lot of us feel a certain kind of way, because we've had
instances of approving something and then not having any level
of impact on what the decisions are in the negotiation.
So I think my next question, which is really kind of the final one on all of them,
is what does accountability, transparency, progress
reports look like related to what we anticipate the
return to be?
Even the goals on the hiring, because Lord knows we've been in council, every time
we have goals on hiring, we never meet them.
And then we say we're trying every single hearing we have about it.
So what does it look like to have accountability on what a baseline
looks like, how improvement looks like, and regular progress updates, what's being
agreed to? How does this council learn that except from
a newspaper reporting as we learned a lot of things here?
So once we are approved here, there are going to be quarterly
reports that are going to be part of the construction period.
So, construction jobs, MWE requirements,
where and when those people are located, as well as the total Illinois prevailing
wages that have been paid on this.
In terms of the other accountability is that you will be seeing these
as reports that the city has to make public in terms
of how the city facility is going to be maintained,
operated, revenues, expenses, and where those dollars are going.
So those are intentions of the overall deal itself that will be
memorialized in legally binding documents as well as in
a memorandum of understanding as part of the closing of the redevelopment
agreement.
So can there
be a commitment
once those decisions have been made related to the contract to have a level of
public hearing based on what that agreement is?
I would have to discuss that internally to see what that would look like.
At the very least, we can have briefings like we do for other major
projects. This is not something that comes back to the council
for approval.
Yeah.
For me, it's less briefing absolutely, but also it's the community engagement part.
Because we'll learn something the public won't, and then they'll go, "Well, why did
you sign off on this deal?" And then we'll say, "Well, we couldn't even vote on it.
We could vote on the money." So now this is the negotiation that happened and we
don't have any level of say on what that is, so at the very least, that should be
made public in some manner. And I don't know what that looks like.
I think these are just questions that I'm left with because we were getting a whole
bunch of phone calls this weekend about figuring out a vote on this without the
answers to everything else. So that's all I've got. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you, Alderman Vasquez. Alderman
Silverstein has requested a remote
participation due to Rule 59.
So moved by Alderman Villegas to allow Alderman Silverstein
in. Alderman Silverstein?
I'm present.
Okay. The next speaker is Alderman
Lospada, followed by Alderman Silverstein.
Thank you so much.
I'll direct some of my questions
towards CDOT because they relate to the map up here,
because much has been made of
the transit
access here. But if you have ever
walked or biked or taken the bus here,
I can say from experience it's uncomfortable at best
and dangerous at worst. It's an area of the city that I've actually
taken to
avoiding because it's a dangerous experience to try to
approach this area in anything other than a car.
So I do have some clarifying questions.
When we're talking about the Roosevelt Road improvements,
objectively and tangibly, what are we talking about in
terms of the reconstruction and the adaptation of the
infrastructure there?
Thank you, Alderman Lospada, for your question.
Anne Zang, Managing Deputy for CDOT.
As far as-
Ms. Zang, I'm sorry, your voice is so soft-spoken
Sorry.
As someone used to tell me, "Put some boom in it."
I will. Thank you, Chair Dowell.
As far as your question regarding the improvements
on Roosevelt, that includes improvements
for the connection for LaSalle, as well as working with
our partners, IDOT, because it is an IDOT route as well
as CTA, for improvements along that
side of the street and any bike-related
upgrades that are necessary on Roosevelt.
What are the necessary bike-related upgrades?
Something that we're looking at closely with the developer as far as
the plans, and we can provide more information
once that's available.
When do you expect that to be available?
It doesn't feel like we... It's leaning into
my frustrations,
is that
I assumed that it was an afterthought, and the way you're communicating to
me currently confirms that this is an afterthought.
Help
me not to believe that.
Jeff Cohen, deputy commissioner.
Maybe I can help articulate that a little bit better.
So as part of this particular redevelopment agreement and the
Roosevelt improvements, it's essentially a complete reconceptualization
of the Roosevelt Road frontage that sits within the TIF
district. So this is going to include
pedestrian sidewalk widening. It's going to include dedicated bike lanes.
It's going to be refreshing the striping so that cars and buses understand
where to go better. And it will also have additional landscaping
improvements so that this is a welcoming piece of the entire 78.
As it goes for Roosevelt improvements to the east
of the TIF district itself, CDOT has been having conversations
with Chair Dowell, as well as Fourth Ward representative, in order to
figure out what additional streetscape work wouldn't be necessary to
improve that type of corridor that you brought to our attention here today.
So those conversations have started and are ongoing.
We need to be able to access, in which we can't now,
any of us, the Red Line TIF,
which is earmarked for the Red Line, to be able to make the kind of street
improvements that I want to see on Roosevelt Road
between State going towards Michigan.
I appreciate that. Is there a reason why we can't make those improvements through
the capital bonds?
That would be likely the source of funding, given that
particular piece of Roosevelt was in the Red Line extension that can only be used
for transit stations that are identified within that legislation.
The most likely situation would need to be a capital planning allocation
for those improvements.
Okay. Can CDOT speak to the intentions of improving the
experience approaching from the west?
Because particularly if you're coming from Roosevelt, from
Halsted over,
you're trying to cross multiple on-ramps and off-ramps to get
here.
Again, the way
to approach this space from a car has been clearly
communicated. From a public transit or
pedestrian or cycling experience, how are we
improving the approach from the west?
From the west, again, this is Ann Zang, management deputy with
CDOT. From the west, that's part of our plan on
the Roosevelt Bridge rehab that's currently
in design. And it would
incorporate the improvements that will be
necessary to ensure that it's a comfortable experience, a multimodal
experience for folks who are accessing the site.
We're looking at it holistically to ensure, as Jeff and Chair Dowell
mentioned, that the entire site accessibility
is key in ensuring that it's a comfortable experience for all
users.
Can you talk about some of the improvements that we're looking at in that redesign?
For the bridge project?
In the redesign of the bridge, and then I would argue from
Halsted leading up to the bridge.
We currently-
If you don't... Keep going, Ann.
Go ahead.
Please keep going.
We're still in the early stages of design for Roosevelt.
So we're looking at the improvements that are necessary for
this bascule bridge. It is also an operating bridge that
we use during the boat lift season.
So to ensure operational efficiency
as well as to ensure that
all modes of transportation are accounted for.
Currently, we
do not have plans for west of the bridge
limits
to Halsted, but that's something that we can certainly take a look at.
Okay. And looking at LaSalle Street, so
if we could go back to the map, because all of this is much more
three-dimensional than the way we're looking at it.
I'm assuming that LaSalle Street is going
at a downgrade. What does the grading of
LaSalle Street look like?
Yeah. So Jeff Cohen, deputy commissioner, DPD.
LaSalle Street is going to connect directly to Roosevelt Road, and then connect
to 13th Street. And then towards the eastern portion of this where
13th Street reconnects to LaSalle will be the downward grade
of LaSalle Street that would connect to 14th Street at the river grading.
So the downward grade will occur on the east side
of the stadium itself.
And for individuals with disabilities, are they primarily
accessing the below-grade spaces via the elevators that have been
described?
You would have access both to the above grade and below grade, and ADA
accessibility would be provided by the elevators.
And how many elevators are there again?
I believe at this point there are two sets of two, so
approximately four.
There's also a
southern pedestrian
access point, which is also accessible
for the disabled-
Okay
... or differently abled.
The improvements that we're talking about,
not just the fact that the lengths of road that will be reconstructed, but
qualitatively, like how we're incorporating design features in,
how is that codified within the redevelopment agreement?
In terms of the accessibility?
In terms-
In terms of not only knowing what the lengths are, but the design
standards, the way we're building multi-modalities of
transportation
into this.
Going back to the idea of accountability, how are those conditions
written into the redevelopment agreement?
Those conditions are going to be, I guess, per the
standard city requirements to build these types of
improvements.
I guess I'm not necessarily understanding whether or not we're talking
about needing to have ADA accessibility-
No
... codified and written into the redevelopment agreements itself rather than
the terms and conditions of how CDOT or DOB would
review these plan specs and make sure that they conform with
all the zoning and code requirements.
So from the perspective of in terms of how people access this
site through infrastructure,
there's what we talk about in public meetings, and then
there is the accountability to make sure that those features are
actually incorporated in. Rather than saying at some point, "Well,
the drivers would rather have two to
three full lanes on each side to approach this site, so that's what we're going to
move forward with." That's why I'm asking, the
accountability in terms of the work you're describing.
It's hard for me to answer
that in terms of the accountability as being the fact
that these improvements need to conform with all
city codes, regulations, and zoning, and those do include ADA
accessibility, the amount of ingress and egress, and
similar types of things like that.
If it's about the commitments that are being made about dedicated bike
lanes or protected bike lanes, those are part of the redevelopment plan
and plans and specifications that are
approved at CDOT. So when we have a permit set of plans that says you are
going to build something, the expectation from the city is that you follow through
on that. So I think in terms of accountability, it's making sure that these plans
and specs incorporate these types of things, and when they are approved to move
forward, that they are built per those plans and specs.
Oh, can I also add in addition-- Oh, Ann Zhang with CDOT.
Just wanted to also add that, in addition to design review, we
will be involved during the construction
review process to ensure that that quality assurance is there,
not just for the materials but also,
as Jeff mentioned, to ensure that the plans and specs meet all of the
requirements as set forth by all the codes that are
required.
I understand it well now.
And supplement that the city won't take the roads back or have them
reconveyed until it is satisfactorily completed and has
received an infrastructure component completion certificate.
I understand your answer. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Espada. We still have a number of items on the
agenda, so I want to acknowledge that I have about
five more people, six more people
identified to speak. And if we could focus on the
assignment here, which is a review of the-
Yeah
... TIF application, it would be helpful.
Alderman
Rodriguez, followed by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I wanted to first recognize your efforts
in engaging the community. 14 meetings
and countless other conversations that have gone into this have led to
an end product here. Or not necessarily an end product, but a product,
because I'm sure the end is at a later date.
A product that I
think is
well-intentioned and well done,
and will lead to an investment that's very, very important to our
city. I do want to acknowledge
our brothers and sisters from UNITE HERE, who
spoke out and
really questioned this project's
intention on
respecting
union labor in the hospitality industry.
I took that charge, and
as the chair of Workforce Development, took that charge very serious,
reached out
to a number of folks
and talked with my colleagues. And I will
say that I want to thank UNITE HERE for bringing this up as an issue.
We're going to be with you guys. I think this council, our chairwoman,
the aldermen of this-- the alderpersons board, aldermomen of this board, aldermenn
of this board, forgive me.
Is committed to making sure that any jobs in
hospitality
are organized and have a path of being organized.
I do think my colleagues did bring up a number of
issues with The Stance, particularly around
its connection with this TIF allocation in addition
to potential future points, so we can be
supportive to any type of organizing efforts.
I have received support from a number of labor
unions or reach out from a number of labor unions in support of
this TIF allocation. So I
do plan on supporting it, Madam Chair.
I just would like to ask, either of you or related or of the
city,
what is our commitment on this project as we move forward
to union labor,
to supporting union labor, and particularly when and if it comes
to
... hospitality jobs.
Thank you, Alderman Rodriguez.
My office has already made the commitment to...
We actually have heard Unite Here, and have reached out
on the one hand to
the
Chicago Fire to encourage
the conversations that have been
ongoing with Unite Here around jobs, and
so I support that.
Regarding the jobs that may come in the future,
the speculative nature of those jobs
today,
I don't know what's coming. But the commitment
is here in the Third Ward office to
work with Unite Here when the part two
gets
applied for, when I have more idea about what is going
to be developed in addition to the Chicago
Fire stadium.
I don't know that today. So my commitment is to
continue to have that conversation and
relationship with both the developer, the
Chicago Fire, and Unite Here, because that discussion
around jobs is really important to me.
Absolutely believe you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate all the work that you've done.
I don't necessarily need anyone else to address the issue.
I just want to be on the record saying
that I don't want to
have this have to come at some point
where Unite Here is on the street. Because if that's the case, I'll be there with
them.
But I know through your leadership,
you're going to do everything to make sure that that doesn't happen.
I appreciate this conversation and the opportunity to speak, and look forward to
supporting this. Thank you.
Yes, thank you.
Related Midwest.
Are you here? Can you speak to
your relationship or conversation with Unite
Here?
Yeah. So Kirk Bailey with Related Midwest.
Yeah, our representatives, as well as the Fire's, have been reaching out
to that organization for over a year, trying to get together and sit
down. So we hope that that will happen in the future.
All right. Thank you.
Alderman
Lopez,
followed by Alderman Taylor.
Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon, members of the committee.
Just a quick question. Did we miss the parking meter deadline by now?
Or
that was a joke.
I think today's the 13th, right?
First off, I want to commend you and all who brought this agreement
to fruition. I think this is a great opportunity for the South
Loop, a great opportunity for those in labor who will be building it,
for all of our
delegate partners who are going to be involved in the construction and the trades
and everything else. And I don't want to revisit any of the things
that any of my colleagues talked about.
I actually want to bring up concerns like that
which Alderman Villegas brought up, which we routinely bring up to the Department
of Planning and Development when it comes to issues that are of
concerns to this body.
Our colleague mentioned about VBE,
and he has spoken about that at length,
and yet nothing from this department.
I've talked about how do we address waivers,
because waivers continue to be a huge issue per the
law, per our contracts, which I've talked about ad nauseam,
to ensure that commitments that are being made, shared in
exhibits, and are being promoted today, are
actually met tomorrow and for the next seven years after that.
So when I look at, for example,
in
Substitute Ordinance 2026-0026275,
page 48, Section
10-10.02,
second paragraph.
Right there it again says, "Developer may request a reduction of waiver of
the minimum percentage levels of Chicagoans for hire, as
provided in the section of the municipal code in accordance with the standards and
procedures developed by the chief procurement officer." Then the very
next section,
which deals with MBE,
10.03.
Talk about all the glowing things that we're going to do with MBEs, WBEs, that's
minority and women-owned business enterprises.
And then, of course, we have Subsection F, which says, "Any reduction of this
or waiver of the developer's MBE/WBE commitment as described
in this section shall be undertaken in accordance with the municipal code."
So we are once again including
language,
despite the glowing presentation, that we are going to
giving out to
developers
in a multi-billion dollar venture of
which we are spending 400 plus million dollars of taxpayer
money. Why are we still doing that?
Jeff Cohen, Deputy Commissioner, DPD.
So I believe the sections that you are referencing, these are our standard
language for TIF redevelopment agreements.
However, the onus for achieving those waivers is on the developer
to actually prove out any of these discounts that are warranted.
Typically, if a waiver is granted prior to construction
starting, that would need to be incorporated, not only just as a
DOH construction compliance approval, but incorporated into the redevelopment
agreement itself. Typically, these
waivers aren't something that we typically want to take into
consideration, and are only there in the case that there is
a supportable argument of why they are requesting such
reduction in any of those public benefits.
Now, this administration has granted waivers on other
multi-million dollar projects in the city.
This administration,
I see, doesn't have either our chief procurement officer or the
contracting equity officer here today. Is that correct?
They are not present at this meeting, no.
Is there a reason why they would not be present for such a large
coordination with our developers, contractors, subcontractors, and the
like?
To me, I don't necessarily think that their presence here is
100% necessary, although I am hearing your concerns about those types of things.
It is 100% necessary because the CPO,
the chief procurement officer, is the one who has the ability to issue a waiver,
correct?
In contracts that are subject to Department of Procurement
Services approvals, I do believe so.
So
both sections that I just referenced reference the municipal code that lead back to
her.
So yes, she is responsible. She is the one that you point to to say that she will
have the decision. She is the one who's not here in this booth.
The question to the development team is then, since we don't have the city's
perspective on this, are they going to be seeking any type of waivers
on this project? And I would defer to them to answer that.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
Related Midwest.
Hello, Don. How are you?
I'm very fine, Alderman. Thank you.
Don Bernacki, Executive Vice President, Related Midwest.
Alderman, we have never requested a waiver in all of the years that
we've been doing development, and we don't intend to do it on this project.
Thank you. So as such, if they have no intention, and I
routinely ask the department and law department to take this out or to
evaluate this because you need to update standard
language to be reflective of modern times.
Then, if that is not going to be an issue for them
or their subsequent GCs or subs or anybody
else, then why don't we take this opportunity to remove that
from the agreement now?
I
will say that I don't think that's wise
for the reason that we're in June.
We're not meeting in
July, we're not meeting in August,
and this would have to come back, and I'm not willing to delay this
project, Alderman Lopez. I think this is something that
I could commit to working with you on.
Madam Chairman, I don't want to delay the project one bit.
Actually, I would move to
amend on its face, striking both paragraphs on page 49 and 52 that
deal with-
I would like to have some conversation with the law department,
the Department of Planning and Development.
I
don't think that we should do it immediately on the floor today.
Madam Chairman, with respect.
I-
We had this.
You've said this about the department to have this conversation with us,
and they clearly have not. They've chosen not to engage in this
conversation about how you address and modernize the issues when it comes to
waivers within standard language. And that is very concerning to me.
Not that I want to do anything that impedes growth
and raising up communities, but this is a simple
fix that they refuse to acknowledge is a concern
for not only our laborers and partner, but also our
WMBE folks. And yes, we may have a great developer today who says I've never done
that, but we know we
dole out millions of dollars to people who get waivers all the time, and we've
never once taken that issue seriously.
So-
The simple fix that I-
Thank you, Chairman
... bringing up was one that was
addressed, which had to do with
some negative comment about the role of the city council
in contracts. But that-
Yes. That's one of them
... that has been addressed.
Yes. And I thank you for that. Yes.
Thank you. But this particular one, I think this is the
first time I'm hearing this, where there's a commitment from
me to work with you on removing that language.
And so I hear what you're saying, but I'm not willing
to do that on the floor today.
Thank you.
Alderman Taylor.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Why I support
you and your endeavors to do something with this spot, we know how
contentious this has been.
Why not a community benefits agreement, Chairwoman?
Because the community benefits that I have heard
from residents are
included in the plan commission
documents,
some aspects are included in the RDA, and really,
a community benefits agreement is not an agreement between
me This council or the city,
it is an agreement between,
the developer and the community.
Chair Taylor, I'd also like to reiterate that the
commitments in the redevelopment agreement are legally binding, and those
are substantial as well.
This is the same Midwest Related that owns Parkway Garden.
Am I correct?
Yes, you are correct.
And so, what is in this agreement that will hold them accountable for not
building another Parkway Garden?
Parkway Garden sits in my ward. I've been trying to work with them since
2019 to create some real change for that community, and I just
doesn't see it happening. And so it seems like to me, we're rewarding bad
behavior.
I will let the-
This is the same entity. They don't have to answer. What would they say?
Well, I-
They don't live in Parkway Gardens.
Is there a reason-
They know about the conditions. They know about the
safety around there. They know that there are security teams standing out
in front of it with machine guns to protect their property.
How many
permanent jobs are going to come with this development?
At its stabilization, the projected amount is 5,000 full-time equivalent positions.
Through the Chair, can you name those positions?
So you want a list of the categories or the numbers of
the categories of those jobs?
And/or both. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
Through the Chair, we will. Well, some of it is going to be hard to
know specifically, because the only development that
has occurred to date is the Chicago Fire
stadium. I'm sure we could get those numbers and the
types of jobs that will be
part of the Chicago stadium development.
But right now, we don't have a lot of information about
phase two
of this development.
So phase two is the Fire stadium?
No. Phase one is the Chicago Fire stadium,
which is under construction.
Okay.
And I believe we can get job numbers and
categories for that development.
I don't believe we can get
job numbers. We have estimated job numbers, but categories
and the breakdown, I'm not able to give
you today because the phase two has not been
presented, and we don't know exactly what's coming in terms
of number of
retail outlets, what kind of retail
outlets.
Would you like the numbers for the Chicago Fire, Alderman?
Yes, ma'am.
All right. Through the Chair, I will get them to you.
Through the Chair, also, can I have a list of all the Related
Midwest
properties that they own in the city?
Yes.
Last question.
Alderwoman, you all
are requesting money to do infrastructure at this site?
Is that what part of this money is going to go to?
All of the money is going for infrastructure
improvements to unlock the potential of a
62-acre site that has sat vacant for
40-plus years.
And that is lights, gas, roads. Can you
tell me what that infrastructure is going to look like?
Or what is it that we're actually providing?
All right.
Not through the Chair, but in the pre-
You can do it through the Chair.
No, we don't have to do it through the Chair.
Okay.
The presentation
which you received has within it a
budget on page nine that talks about
all of the infrastructure improvements and the dollar
amounts for each of those improvements.
And Alder Taylor, this is Jeff Cohn with DPD.
Within the redevelopment agreement itself, there are specific definitions of each
one of these components that goes into more detail about what will be delivered
as part of those components.
That's in the report?
That's in the redevelopment agreement definition section.
Because I was just about to say, you all never tell us what hard cost and
soft cost
is.
On page-
Alderwoman Dowell. Go ahead.
Yes. On page nine of the document that
was-
Mm-hmm
... it identifies the hard costs and the soft
costs, and further identifies what the hard
cost dollars or categories
are.
Just for an example,
the roadways are about $105 million.
The sea wall is about $34 million.
So that delineation is in the document
that was sent to you.
Alderwoman Dowell, how many community meetings did you all convene around this?
I had a total of about 14.
What did you feel like was the biggest pushback from community members
at those meetings?
Biggest pushback was related to
traffic congestion and people not wanting to see a second
stadium on the site.
Thank you, Chairwoman.
You're welcome.
Alderman Martin.
Thank you, Chair, and good afternoon, everybody.
I had a few follow-up questions to start to Alderman Lampadas.
I appreciated both an acknowledgement that Roosevelt
needs some TLC. That's not a fun street to walk along,
and I've had the occasion to do that, whether it's going to a movie
theater, to visiting some friends.
And so I appreciated hearing not just that acknowledgement,
but some of the improvements.
And I think that's shared by Alderman Conway and Alderman
Lamont Robinson. We all share that little area in some
form or fashion.
Understood. Can you share a little bit more detail about the timeline
associated with this? Because when the stadium comes online
in 2028, we're hoping, of course, to address some of your
constituents' concerns around traffic, that not everybody is driving there, that
some are going to be taking public transit, getting off at the Roosevelt stop,
or taking a bus nearby. What is the
timeline for ensuring that some of the
improvements along Roosevelt are going to be
made so that that experience of people walking up a
bridge, especially on a hot day like today, where currently the
sidewalks are narrow, there is very little seating, there's
very little shade,
that that can be addressed?
Ms. Zhang?
Yes. Anne Zhang, Managing Deputy for CDOT.
As Jeff mentioned earlier, some of this is outside of the
TIF and would require another source of funding.
But we have had discussions with
Chair Dowell and
DPD regarding options and how we can
ensure that there are improvements that can be made along Roosevelt.
As far as timeline, that's something that we need to look into for
design, procurement, and construction.
I would expect that to be a part of the ongoing conversation
for the site as a whole.
Okay. Well, I think we're obviously talking about a lot of infrastructure
improvements that are further along, it sounds like, and I understand why that's
the case. The point about the Red Line
TIF and the challenges that presents, fully understand
that. But what can you say around timeline?
Because I think we want to avoid a situation where some of the
improvements that are on that chart right there are made, but that some of
the other complementary improvements that we're discussing along Roosevelt
itself, we want to ensure that those are happening on the same timeline as what's
right there.
So in reference to the improvements along Roosevelt Road that sit within
the Roosevelt/Clark TIF districts, those would be made as part of the
timeline with the delivery of the stadium.
I think that additional, again, to Anne's point, there needs to
be additional timeframes that are built into how we fund and
create the road that goes east towards Michigan
Avenue. What those timeframes are, I don't think we can make any specific
commitments to since those are in the early stages of the feasibility as
well as the design plans of that. But we do want those to occur shortly
thereafter in order to make sure that the experience coming from the Roosevelt
station is improved and all participants coming to the
stadium or the 78 in general do have an enjoyable
experience moving from that area towards the western frontage.
What are the east-west boundaries of the Red Line TIF?
I know that the western boundary is essentially the
eastern portion of Clark Street. I would have to go refer back to
the TIF map in order to give you the exact boundary on the eastern frontage.
Okay. I want to move on to another point, but I'd respectfully ask
through the chair by end of day tomorrow for you to
share different options in terms of timelines.
I understand the different considerations and the challenges,
but I
think the department needs to give us more here, including more
certainty around what options it can pursue to
ensure that regardless of what option or set of options are taken,
that we are successful in ensuring that those improvements to
Roosevelt are made by the time that the stadium is open.
So by end of day tomorrow, need
something in writing that specifies what you are looking at
and to the best of your knowledge, what those timelines look like.
Yes. We can work with DPD on that.
Okay.
I want to move to public transit, especially on the southern half
or southern third of the site. We heard today that we
might see approximately, I know this is a round number because this is not phase
one, 10,000 housing units that are added there.
It sounds like depending on what exactly is constructed,
that that would put a lot of
burden on existing infrastructure, both cars,
people using roadways, as well as public transit.
Can you give some more specification as to how
the contours of phase two will impact what public
transit needs you think may be needed to support
those additional homes, specifically
buses, Metra, or the L? Because as we know, a lot of
this takes time, and I would hate to be in a situation
where this committee is asked to consider something additional with regard to
phase two or phase three, and we know at that meeting
that
What is being considered really would
benefit from improved public transit infrastructure
of some sort, but that that's not far enough along because of how long that can
take, similar to what we were just talking about a second ago about
Roosevelt. So
where are we at in terms of what might be needed in terms
of public transit improvements for phase two or phase three?
Jeff Cohen, Deputy Commissioner, DPD.
I think that we're in the early stages.
I think we need to have a better understanding of what the demand drivers are going
to be coming from the 78. As part of the
phasing plan for the master plan, there's going to be additional
opportunities for community involvement, as well as additional approvals
for the types of
vertical construction, as well as other infrastructure components that could
potentially be incorporated into any subsequent plan.
But that will also have to include an analysis of
constructability, site selection, feasibility.
That will need to be done in conjunction with CTA as part of those
conversations.
Given the fact that there's a lot of variability with those phase two and
subsequent plans, is it still the case that there is an
option for additional public transit
infrastructure, including, but not limited to, an
L station or improved bus service?
100%. As part of the plan development that was approved in September of
'25, there is the ability to construct a new CTA
station on-site.
Has anyone from CTA or Metra said something is off the
table in terms of what is currently on
the table with regard to the September 2025 plan?
In terms of the-
If the plan calls for a potential L station or a
potential Metra station, have either of those entities said no
to that?
Not to my knowledge. I know that CTA is evaluating potential
options for a CTA station for that area.
Okay. Two last quick questions. When is the TIF,
not the Red Line Extension one, but the TIF we're here talking about today, when is
that scheduled to expire?
2043.
And then lastly,
and Alderman Hall had mentioned this, and I was just coming into the hearing at the
time, annual revenues that you're expecting from
the parking meters associated with the parking structure?
Yeah. Gross revenues from the operations are projected
between $3 and $4 million.
Cool. Yeah.
Point of information. I was specific about the revenue from the parking garage.
Yes.
The meters, I didn't want to confuse those.
I was just-
Understood. Yes, the parking garage. I know what it was about. Yeah.
Then that's helpful. So, a follow-up question to that, is there any
other revenue that could be derived from this
parking structure, this parking garage, in addition to the revenue from
people coming to park there?
Yeah. There's also additional provisions within the redevelopment agreement
for opportunities to share revenues from advertising within the facility,
signage, and any other activations that may occur in the public open
space that will be on top of the podium structure itself.
What's a range, however tentative, that that could amount to dollar amount?
I think it's too early to understand what kind of activation strategies there would
be. But there is the ability to participate in that revenue.
I think typically, signage,
based on my past experience, runs around anywhere from
$15,000 to $50,000 a year, depending on what kind of
signage and what the exposure is. So again, not knowing
what kind of signage or other advertising opportunities that might make sense,
it's hard to give you an exact figure for that right now.
Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Burnett, followed by Alderman O'Shea.
Thank you, Chairman.
I first want to say thank you to DPD and to Chairman Dowell
for going along with this process.
I know it's been a long time coming,
almost a decade since this has been acknowledged as a project
through the hands of Related. So I know there's been a ton of work and a ton of
changes. And I echo some of the concerns and
questions from my colleagues, particularly around
the TIF and the garage usage. And so thank you
for letting us know that this TIF expires in 2043.
Has it been extended already, or is there another capability of extending it
beyond that point?
There has been no 12-year extension for it.
However, if the ILGA and this body wants to
approve an extension, that could potentially happen in the future, but that's not
on the table right now.
Thank you. And in regards to the
potential CTA station, have you all done work around how much
that might cost? I know it was originally in some plan at some point,
but what are the current projections for it?
And as we continue to delay that portion, what is the
expectations of costs
increasing over the time in which it might be in plan?
I don't have any preliminary costs for what could be done at
a CTA station. I think that still needs to be further developed in terms
of the feasibility, constructability, site selection.
So those will all have compounding effects on what the overall cost would
be. But yes, it would likely be a
significant cost.
Just so you all know, we've gone through this exercise in my ward for both.
We've done a new train stop with Damon, and we're thinking about doing one on
Madison and Palatine, and the cost on
a six to eight-year difference is almost 40% higher than the last time we built
a train station. So when you go,
it seems every five to
six years, the cost almost double for a train station.
So I just want people to be aware of how much it cost for us to delay
on building the- Public infrastructure related to
our train stations.
On that same line of questioning,
in regards to this TIF, how much has been swept over the last couple of years?
Last year, I don't believe there was any surplus from Roosevelt
Clark. I would have to go back into the records to see what previous years were for
Roosevelt Clark.
That would be helpful to understand, through the chair again.
When we think about these large infrastructure projects that are needed in these
areas, I would love for us to be more mindful of maintaining the funds in the
districts that need it the most, so we don't fall into the same
trouble where we're having to port over from other districts in order
to alleviate some of our funding concerns.
And
with regards to this public parking garage, when was the last time the city funded
a public parking garage?
I believe that would be the Millennium Garage at Millennium Park.
And how did that fare out for the city?
I'm not sure about the specific metrics, but I know that it is revenue producing.
Okay. Revenue, not necessarily profit producing.
I know we sold it off in the
concession agreement alongside the parking meters, to which I know
that the owners of that considered it a wash.
So
when we think about the utilization of this parking garage, who's going to be
utilizing it over the first five to six years?
I've seen the plan, and it's phase one, only thing we see is the Chicago Fire
stadium. What is the expectation in terms of
timeline for phase two to be built?
And then who else will be utilizing this parking garage outside of the Chicago
Fire?
Yeah. Once the parking garage is delivered, we anticipate
not just it to be utilized by the Fire.
It would be used for anybody who's willing to and wanting to come down to the
78. It's open to the public 320 days a year.
So,
for the first phase, it will likely be people who are coming down
either for the Fire games itself or to participate in the
activation for the amenities that are being developed on the riverwalk.
I think also it could act as overflow parking for some of these other areas that
have parking constraints. I know that some of the constituents in
some of the neighboring communities have
reached out to us about potential ideas of how to leverage that and make sure that
the parking structure's not just static in its nature, but
potentially can serve other communities in how we can create an
effective plan for other communities as well.
I would love to see the utilization analysis for this parking garage,
because as it currently stands with what's around there, it seems like the only
folks who'll be utilizing it is for the Chicago Fire, on whether that's
20 or how many games a year that will happen at the Fire stadium?
17. So 17 days is the high-
And then another 28 large event days as well.
Okay. So 40 or so days where it's expected to be high
utilization off the initial ramp-up.
I do have questions around when do we expect for this to truly
generate meaningful revenue for the City of Chicago?
But that being said, I did venture down into Chinatown
this weekend, and I do notice the parking constraints in that
area.
There is a ton of cars and people visiting in that area that
actually people are looking for. I drove around for 15, 20 minutes
looking for a spot. So I recognize that there is a desire and need, but
also want to recognize the goal of the city and that we've mentioned in our
planning endeavors is to build a more
transit-orientated city. So multiple ways with the bike lanes, with
CTA stations, with Metro, so I'm excited for the Metro stop as well.
But want to be mindful that
I don't necessarily see the initial
return on the parking garage, and so that concerns me that we're
utilizing a lot of our TIF funds for this parking
structure while neglecting the cost of a CTA station.
So that trade-off is not something that is missed upon me understanding the cost
profile. And that being said, I know
there's still so much to do analytically on what makes
sense following the Chicago Fire stadium in phase two and phase three.
But what would be the timeline to get phase
two
planned and started in construction at this point in time?
Well, I can take on the first part of it, and in terms of the timing, I might have
the development team chime in. But I think it's also important to reiterate that
this is not just a parking structure.
That the return profile is yes, we want to make sure that this is self-sustaining
and can generate a return. The parking structure is
incorporated into the podium infrastructure that's here to
address these grading issues, as well as providing the streets and
connectivity to the grid. So the return isn't necessarily
going to be completely driven by just cash flow and
an IRR calculation. It's going to be tax generation
from the stadium, sales tax, excise tax, amusement tax.
It'll be from new vertical development and the property taxes that that generate.
All of these go into kind of the return profile of what the podium
infrastructure is going to bring to the 78, as well as taxpayers as well.
So, I don't
think we should narrow just the return profile of the parking
structure in and of itself, because it is integrated into a larger
thematic design plan as well as execution strategy.
In terms of the timing for additional phases, we hope that
these will start to occur shortly thereafter when the first phase is
taken care of. And in that timeframe, we also have the ability of
working with communities and making sure that those ideas are incorporated
almost in tandem as things are getting constructed as well.
Understood. And I appreciate the complexity of the site in regards to this parking
structure. I just also want to be mindful of the fact that we just have-
Looking at the United Center as well as US Cellular Field, those are two large
sporting arenas that have multiple acres of parking lots
around it for 20 plus years waiting for something to happen.
And I do not want the city to fall into another trap of utilizing
surface parking lots on a site waiting for something to come.
Part of that is utilizing this first stage in order to get the infrastructure right
so that they can attract the capital to invest on these
lands,
to which that isn't missed. But I want to
look at the previous sports projects as a cautionary tale to
provide urgency to get phase two and phase three planned
and constructed while we have the funds and the ability to do so with both
TIF
and the other remaining pockets of capital that we have across
the state. So I appreciate it, and thank you for
answering my questions regarding the complexities of this parking garage.
Thank you, Alderman
Burnett. I will say that,
speaking probably for the developer, no one has more urgency to
get phase two started than them. So
I hear you. Thank you.
Alderman O'Shea?
Thank you, Chair.
For the last several hours,
we've been talking about this, and much of the information
was covered in reports that were sent to us.
Much of the information was asked and answered multiple times.
But I think as we're coming to a vote, it's important
to cover a couple of things. Mr. Cohen,
how many housing units will this project include?
10,000. And how many of those
affordable housing?
20% if this TIFA is approved.
And I'm not a mathematician, but
that many affordable housing units, that would be more than, oh, I don't know,
we've built in the city in the last two generations combined?
I don't know about two generations, but yes, in recent
years, yeah.
Certainly longer than anybody who's been in this body.
Let's talk a little bit about job creation.
How many construction jobs
will this involve?
Yeah. Over the long term and full build-out of the 78, it's projected to create
10,000 construction jobs at Illinois prevailing wages.
10,000 construction jobs. And
as my colleague, Alderman Villegas,
brought up a couple hours ago,
we're going to look to
support veteran-owned businesses in that?
Yes. As you heard from the development team, they're willing to make that
commitment on the record.
And this is going to also work to help minority and women-owned
businesses too?
That is also correct. They are going to exceed the 26 and 6 with a 30 and
10 binding legal commitment.
And there's a significant amount of open space included in this?
Yes. In the first phase alone, there's approximately two and three quarters of
acres of new open space, and there's a minimum requirement of six acres
throughout the entire planned development.
And
what would be a
comfortable number of property tax revenue generated from this?
Projections are approximately $140 million a year once fully
stabilized, with the phase one improvements approximately $17
million a year on average.
And the developer behind this?
Related Midwest.
Yeah. Related Midwest, who any of us that have taken the time to do a little
research,
has had many, many, many successful projects
in our city and
elsewhere. We
just covered some of the things
that this body talks about over and over and
over. Affordable housing,
job creation, supporting minority and women-owned
businesses,
equity,
property tax revenue, something we need here in this
city.
And obviously, there's been some concerns here brought up for many of my
colleagues, and it sounds like much of that
we can continue to work on. But
in closing, Chairman,
thank you for your leadership on this.
Thank you to Commissioner Boatwright and her staff for working on
this.
Thank you to Related Midwest, I know some of their leadership is here
today, for doing what many organizations
aren't doing, investing in our city, investing in
people, something that many people in this building like to talk
about. And thank you to Joe Mansueto, who obviously a
very successful businessman, but if you do a little research on him,
a very philanthropic individual. I think this is a win-win.
Thank you for your leadership, Chairman. I'll be a yes vote.
I
strongly urge everyone else here to.
Thank you, Alderman O'Shea. Before I add my comments to
this project,
Vice Chair Conway, you have more questions.
Well, I'd like to speak before your comments.
You know what?
And many of my comments are responsive to other questions that have been asked.
This is not your project.
Well, I'm paying for it, as we're going to see.
We're paying for it.
Well, have at it.
So over the last year, one of the biggest debates we've had in this
city, if I could actually see slide 10 on there.
One of the biggest projects, biggest debates we've had is should we
subsidize a new professional football stadium?
And regardless of where people came down on that issue, I think there was broad
agreement that if public money's going to be committed, the
public benefit ought to be clear.
And today, we are facing a remarkably similar
situation as we look at that diagram.
It's different.
We are here to discuss whether taxpayers should commit approximately 425
million in TIF-funded public improvements for a different
professional sports complex. That's what that is.
Now, I don't think anyone in this chamber would accuse me of being
anti-development.
In fact, I think some people would think that I've never met a project I didn't
like if it put a
shovel in the ground or crane in the sky.
So believe me,
I don't take my analysis on this lightly.
Over the weekend, I had the pleasure of reading hundreds of pages of redevelopment
agreements, and over the last few weeks, reviewed lots of projections
and supporting documents. And I really did want to find a path to
yes on this whole project, but I just can't because so much of it is such a bad
deal. And I'll show my work here in a moment, but let me
put it bottom line up front.
We are being asked to approve more than $400
million of taxpayer money,
with over half of it going to a parking lot and a plaza
instead of investments that improve everyday life for Chicagoans.
Not public transit, not affordable housing, not neighborhood
infrastructure, the very purposes that TIF was designed to serve.
And I'm going to skip a stone over this, but I provided some
exhibits. Exhibit one, you see how this TIF
ask has evolved.
As brought up by many, this was a very transit-focused
plan at the beginning. And you also see how it's
$425 million.
You all asked me a lot of questions on all those LaSalle Street reimagined
projects, and I appreciate that you did.
The total of all of them was 290 million.
You also asked a lot of questions about Foundry Park. That was 200 million.
This project is like the combined total of both
of them,
and that should give every member of this committee pause.
Now,
looking at exhibit two, you see a map of the Canal
Congress, and you can see where it intersects Roosevelt Clark.
It's literally just in the middle of the
street there. So the fact that people think it's going to radiate all over the
Canal Congress TIF is simply
not accurate. But the bigger point
here is that this TIF, regardless of whose ward it's in,
is the main transport TIF of this city.
It's got Union Station in it. It supports infrastructure around
Ogilvie. It's got Greyhound in it.
And
like I said, I'd go quickly here. So that takes me to exhibit
three. Exhibit three is the TIF
budget I was shown during budget season
on October 15th, 2025.
And what you'll see in there
is that this project was supposed to cost this TIF $85
million. Considering the TIF churns out about 65 million
a year,
I thought it was a big number, but I could understand and
accept that. And you'll note this was on October 15th, by the way.
Now let's take a look at what it looks like today in the next exhibit here.
They came back to me May 28th and says, "No, it's
$278 million."
More than three times.
And actually, a shocking revelation that came out of the hearing today was
apparently DPD completed an RDA in September.
Didn't feel the need to update my
TIF budget here. When you work with DPD, they're very
smart people, but you better keep receipts, and I have one here showing that
transparency has been lacking with regard to
this project.
But that's not really where I want to focus my concerns.
What you will see in this exhibit
is
between the Taylor Street Bridge and this
project,
essentially the entire revenue
of this TIF is being drained by the Roosevelt Clark TIF for the
next eight or nine years.
Now, will our transport hubs need any money from this TIF?
Will they in the next eight or nine years?
Well, fortunately or unfortunately,
that
question was answered in a few weeks when you turn to exhibit five, where you see a
letter from June 18th of this year from DPD
to the US Department of Transportation saying,
"We are willing to contribute up to," that's on the second
page, "willing to contribute up to 55 million of non-federal funds
comprised of tax increment financing of Chicago Union
Station Concourse." Something right in the middle of this TIF.
Well, you could see in the previous exhibits, it's nowhere listed in here.
Now,
despite my
fiery words,
I don't want to appear overly
obstinate.
Before us, we have two redevelopment agreements, and
believe me, I spent all weekend reading them.
The first agreement is for $174 million.
Huge number,
but it funds roads, utilities,
river improvements, Metro work, pedestrian connections.
These are the kind of things that public investment trusts, TIFs,
have traditionally funded. Those improvements
remain public no matter who develops the surrounding
community. And
after doing my homework, despite the cost, which is essentially entirely
borne by the Canal Congress TIF, I can support
that part of the agreements
But the second agreement is totally different.
It asks taxpayers to spend $250
million on a city-owned parking facility, a public
plaza, and podium structure that is specifically designed to
support future private development.
And by the way, I dispute the characterization that that could possibly be
considered infrastructure. This is something I cannot support, and I don't think
something we as a city can support.
Because at some point we have to ask ourselves a simple question, are we funding
public infrastructure or not? Or are we funding a
complex whose principal purpose is to support a stadium?
And this is not just about this project.
Can you imagine if the Cubs had come to us 10 years ago and said, "We want public
money to build Gallagher Way. We want public money to build the parking under Hotel
Zachary." We would have
laughed them out of the chamber.
Something else that came out today,
as you saw on the previous slide, we're spending $158 million on this
parking structure, and it's been said multiple times that it's going to churn out
$3 to $4 million in revenue. This is a city where we borrow
money at 6% to 7%. Who would possibly think that
that is a good idea?
Also, Unite Here wanted me to pass-- I know a lot of you asked about the union
jobs, but the leadership of Unite Here wanted me to pass along that
according to them, they have not been contacted.
But this is really about priorities.
Every member of this committee knows the conversations we have in our wards
and we're going to have over the next year.
We hear about affordable housing, we hear about public safety, we hear about the
CTA, we hear about streets and sidewalks and services, because those are
the issues that shape people's daily lives and the priorities they
expect us to fight for.
So I don't understand how any of us can look the
people in this city in the eye and tell them that we
can't fund those things, but somehow we found
$250 million of hard-earned taxpayer
money for a parking garage and plaza as part of a stadium
complex.
I support rebuilding streets, I support investments that serve the public and
support growth, and that's why I'll certainly support the infrastructure
redevelopment agreement. But I cannot support asking taxpayers to
finance the parking garage and plaza redevelopment agreement, and frankly, don't
see how anybody could while so many Chicagoans are struggling.
Taxpayers are frustrated, and they have every right to be.
And frankly, this is a real choice, and the people of Chicago deserve
to know who made it. So frankly, Madam Chairwoman,
I don't know what you're planning to do for item 15.
I'm planning to put this for a vote after I finish what I have to say.
Okay. I would ask for that item 16 to be a roll call. Thank you.
Well, we're going to have a roll call.
I am proud today to speak in support of...
Excuse me, Alderman Sposato.
I just want to make one observation.
Yes.
Okay. I hate to call you a mister, but I don't remember your first name. So, Mr.
Cohen, you were awesome. You answered every question, many of them
four or five times, unfortunately, but you did a great job.
Commissioner Boatright should be awful proud of you.
I just want to say you did a great job. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
I think this is Jeff's first
presentation,
and I'm sitting next to him and he hasn't even let out a
sweat.
I think before I say my remarks, Alderman Sancho Lopez,
did you need a round two?
No. Briefly, I know we discussed this,
Chairwoman.
I think different rules for different people, right?
This issue about talking with aldermen that have
neighboring TIFs, I know that we and I discussed about this in terms of having a
process for that, because they need to be consulted.
I don't want to take too much of your time, but this is something procedurally we
should address in terms of transparency for TIF usage when it comes to
neighboring TIFs and how we communicate to the people that are
sharing or contributing to this TIF.
I'll leave it like that, and I already spoke on this. Thank you.
I appreciate that. Thank you. And Alderman Villegas, you had a
final question?
Yeah. Just two. I saw on the slide above the garage you had air rights.
So is there going to be future development above that garage?
Yes.
Okay. And then second,
the
public infrastructure is related doing that, or is that CDOT and
Water doing that infrastructure?
Related would be taking that on and being reimbursed for eligible costs.
Okay. Thank you.
And the development above the podium brings
property taxes, sales taxes.
Okay.
Alderman Hopkins wanted to be added to
remote participation under the Rule 59.
So moved by Alderman
Lopez. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Got you, Alderman Sposato.
And
the ayes have it, and Alderman Hopkins, you are now part of
quorum.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was already on the quorum roll call.
All right.
But I appreciate the Rule 59. No questions at this time, thank you.
Right. Great. Thank you.
So in closing, I am proud to speak today
in support of the 78 Project and the complete
renewal of a vacant plot of land that has sat fallow,
undeveloped, and unused for more than 60
years. Today represents the next step in what
has been a laborious yet collaborative
process of balancing the needs of the city, the needs of
the Third Ward, community groups, and the developers.
This site presents a unique challenge in that it is
completely isolated yet sits directly at
the center of the connection between the South Side and the rest of the
city.
It represents a real physical obstruction that
limits connectivity and investment on the South Side.
This TIF request directly funds the
infrastructure necessary to literally build up the
site, tying the city together.
Let me be clear, no city money is going to the construction of the
stadium. The TIF dollars requested will go solely
towards the infrastructure necessary to make the site
viable.
This infrastructure includes new streets and utilities,
reconstruction of the river wall for future connectivity,
desperately needed improvements to Roosevelt and Clark Street,
pedestrian access to the south end of the site, safety
improvements for Metra, and most importantly, construction of a
podium that will directly connect Roosevelt Road to The
78 at grade. A lot has been said about
the podium structure and the inclusion of a parking garage.
I would like to take a moment to re-emphasize the structure's
importance. The podium brings the site to grade at
Roosevelt Road, and is necessary regardless of what is
ultimately constructed.
It is the key to unlocking the site from the
isolation that has stalled every previous development
proposal.
This parking garage is secondary.
Its inclusion represents a productive use of space
that would otherwise be occupied by dark, desolate
alleyways of support columns beneath the structure.
You all know lower Wacker Drive.
This is an innovative way to spur revenue generation for the
city while making use of space beneath a necessary
piece of infrastructure. As far as concerns about what will
be included in future phases of development, including
housing, retail, dining options, and public spaces,
I hear those concerns, and as I have been doing over the past
year, I will continue to solicit input on future
phases and work to ensure that community feedback
helps shape this development.
Those future phases, however, are not possible
without the truly massive infrastructure lift we are discussing
today.
I want to see affordable housing built on the site, and there are provisions for
it.
I want to see restaurants, hotels, and retail spur job
creation, all of which are included in the future phasing.
I also want to see additional public transit options at what is
already the most transit-friendly stadium in Chicago.
All of these needs build on one
another and are contingent on increasing density on the
site.
That density is not possible without the
proper physical infrastructure.
While this is a major TIF investment that comes with major
obligations, I think it is worth mentioning that this
project has been forecasted for the past year, and
while the numbers may have been adjusted, DPD has made
it clear that this will not impact any other projects throughout
the city.
Porting and putting our TIF dollars to use by
developing as they are intended to be used is the best
way for us to strategically deploy our resources and is
standard practice on these major projects.
This committee in particular has seen this in practice
as over the past two years we have deployed the same
strategy to dedicate over $290
million in TIF funds to the LaSalle Street
Revitalization program.
That program, The 78 and other projects like them,
require buy-in from us as a collective and not just
simply acting possessive.
In fact, we haven't seen any new projects to be funded in the Congress
Canal TIF that has been presented today.
Those future phases in this project is one for the
entire city, not just for the South Loop, not
just for the Third Ward. It serves as a connector for the city,
a driving force for future development and for community
for generations to come.
This committee has approved hundreds of millions of
dollars for projects like this, projects focused on
moving the city forward and addressing undeveloped,
underused, and abandoned areas, buildings,
and projects in innovative ways. When this
opportunity to advance transformational projects comes
before us, it's like catching lightning in a bottle.
We act quickly. We invest in the necessary infrastructure
and reap the long-term benefits and keep it moving.
It takes collaboration among all of us and a
willingness to set aside our sometimes territorial
nature as alders to see these developments
through. This is a truly exciting time for the Third
Ward and for the city as a whole.
We are quite literally raising a new community from barren
land. The 78 and the Chicago Fire stadium
represent a significant investment and a testament to the belief
in the future of the City of Chicago.
This site will stand as a statement to the world about what this
city and its people can accomplish when we strive for
innovation and excellence. And with that, I
am calling for a vote
On this matter, can I have a motion?
So moved by Al-
So moved.
Somebody in the remote world moved.
I don't know who that was. So moved by
Alderman-
Rodriguez
... Alderman Rodriguez. So moved, and we'll have a roll call vote.
Vice Chair Conway.
No, no. No point of order. You have to say...
Yes.
I am so upset with you. I just...
No. Item number 15. Vice Chair
Conway, yes or no?
Vice Chair Conway is a yes. Alderman Lospada.
Alderman Hopkins.
Yes.
Alderman Hall.
Yes.
Alderman Mitchell.
Yes.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beal.
Yep.
Alderman Lee.
Yes.
Alderman Ramirez.
Yes.
Alderman Quinn.
Yes.
Alderman Lopez.
Yes.
Alderman Moore.
Yes.
Alderman Curtis.
Yes.
Alderman O'Shea.
Yes.
I needed that right about now. Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Welcome home, Lewandowski. Yes.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Siccho Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Yes.
Alderman Irvin.
Yes.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Yes.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Alderman Casada.
Yes.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitts.
Aye.
Alderman Sposato.
Yes.
Alderman Vasquez.
Yes.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knutson.
Yes.
Alderman Martin.
Yes.
Alderman Silverstein.
Yes.
Ex Officio Nugent.
Yes.
Chair Dowell votes yes.
Item 15 passes 30 to one.
Can I get a motion for item number 16?
So moved by Alderman Harris.
We'll take a roll call vote,
by the same roll call if there's no objection.
No objection to the same roll?
Okay, so we'll take a
quick roll call here. Alderman
Conway.
Can I just say that with you as a... No, never mind.
Alderman Lospada.
Alderman Hopkins.
No.
Alderman Hall.
Yes.
Alderman Mitchell.
Yes.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beal.
Yep.
Alderman Lee.
Yes.
Alderman Ramirez.
Yes.
Alderman Quinn.
Yes.
Alderman Lopez.
Yes.
Alderman Moore.
Yes.
Alderman Curtis.
Yes.
Alderman O'Shea.
Yes.
Alderman Taylor.
Aye.
Alderman Mosley.
Yes.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Yes.
Alderman Scott.
Alderman Siccho Lopez.
Yes.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Yes.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Yes.
Alderman Waguespack.
Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman Casada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitts.
Yes.
Alderman Sposato.
Yes.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knutson.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Yes.
Ex Officio Nugent.
Chair Dowell votes yes.
Item number 16 passes 26 to
four.
I just want to thank my colleagues today for their support on
this project. This is a great project for the City of Chicago.
Let's move Chicago ahead.
Mm-hmm.
First round on me, yeah. All right, going back to the regular
order of the agenda.
Can we take
a break?
We have to take a five-minute break for the court
reporter.
We stand in recess five minutes.
Hey,
good afternoon, everyone. The Committee on Finance is called
back to order.
Going back into the regular order of business,
agenda item number seven, which is from the
Department of Finance, which is an ordinance approving the
authority to issue Chicago O'Hare
International Airport senior lien revenue and refunding
bonds series 2026 B, C, and
D.
We are joined today by acting CFO Steven Mar.
Huh, you don't look like Steven. Brendan.
Brendan White, Assistant Commissioner, Debt Manager from the office of the
CFO.
Zach Baughman, Managing Deputy Commissioner of the
Department of Aviation.
Thank you, Chairman.
So on behalf of the Department of Aviation, thank you for having us today at the
Committee on Finance. We appreciate the committee's continued support to
ensure that the critical infrastructure projects that we're delivering
out at the airport continue to be delivered successfully.
Before diving into some of the specifics of the finances about
these bond issuances, we just wanted to take a moment and
celebrate some of the many successes that O'Hare has had over the past
few years. Just last year, as I'm sure you've heard, maybe you've seen on our
bus advertisements around the city, that O'Hare has reclaimed its title as the
busiest airport in the world in terms of aircraft operations.
Last year, we were 6.1% busier than the next busiest,
Atlanta,
and we strive to continue to maintain those levels of
operations.
With that increased operations traffic, we've also seen passenger growth
increase. Last year, we had 84.8 million
passengers.
Excuse me,
Mr. Baughman. Alderman Quinn.
Madam Chair, with respect, could we move on with this?
We don't necessarily need a victory lap here, do we?
Could we move on with the
subject at hand?
Uh-
This is a victory lap.
I'm certainly happy to-
I think we wanted to have context for the
reason for the-
And shouldn't that be in the aviation committee?
Forgive me.
This is the only page that there is, so we'll continue. Please continue.
Yeah. I'm happy to run through this very quickly.
So O'Hare continues to be the most connected airport in the
country, offering the most domestic
connections of any airport
within the United States, and we've seen that come with an increase in
revenue. Last year, we had a record amount of concessions
revenue and an increase in other revenue streams, including parking,
car rental, and hotel revenue.
In order to maintain these levels of traffic, we
have to continue to deliver infrastructure that allows the
airport to function and grow. We recently announced that we executed
a $1.45 billion guaranteed maximum price
agreement with our construction manager at risk for our new concourse,
Concourse D, that was $21 million under budget.
We've also seen important milestones achieved in our Terminal 3
improvements project, as well as the opening of a new
taxiway on the airfield just last week, and continued advancements of
other airfield improvement projects, such as our grade-separated roads.
I'll pass it over to Brendan White to talk about the specifics of this bond
ordinance.
Thank you, Zach. My name is Brendan White.
I'm an assistant commissioner in the Department of Finance in the CFO's office.
This slide here is an overview of the $4.5
billion not to exceed principle that will
cover refinancing and new money bond
transactions that we are looking to execute in
2026 and 2027.
That includes both refinancing and
tender
transactions, and new money transactions in both
2026 and 2027.
Just a quick overview on the O'Hare
revenue bonds, that these bonds are solely repaid from airport
revenues generated at O'Hare, and they are not secured from tax revenues
or any other revenues in the city's general fund.
We're going to use these proceeds
to fund the capital projects that Zach will go into more detail shortly,
or in the case of the refinancing tender, to generate debt service savings.
These bonds are not being issued for operating expenses or liquidity
needs.
These bonds are necessary to continue our progress on the
significant and ongoing capital improvements at O'Hare, and will
also realize between $60 and $113
million in savings over time from the refinancing and tender
reducing debt service payments.
Because these bonds are fully repayable from airport revenues,
the ratings on the O'Hare bonds are higher than the
ratings for the city's general obligation bonds.
On this slide, we see that the O'Hare revenue bonds
have stable outlooks from all four rating agencies in the
A range.
And while we don't expect any change in the near term, we do believe that
the completion of these
CIP projects and other capital projects will set the stage
for a potential upgrade and improved operations at the airport.
On this slide, it shows the deal team that we are expecting to
manage the refinancing and tender transaction.
We are looking to have JP Morgan lead this transaction with
significant MBE and WBE participation in
the underwriting pool, and we also have strong
MBE,
WBE participation on our financial advisor and legal
counsel team.
On the new money
side, we would look to have Wells Fargo lead the transaction
with a similar amount of MBE, WBE participation from the underwriting
team, and similar
MBE, WBE participation on the financial advisory and legal side.
Turning it back over to Zach to just talk a little bit more in detail about the
capital projects that these bonds will finance.
Thank you, Brendan. So
at O'Hare, we have a terminal redevelopment program ongoing, as
you all know, and that is called ORDNext.
ORDNext is a portion of our ongoing capital improvement projects.
The purpose of ORDNext is threefold.
One, to enhance the passenger experience, two, to improve
international and domestic connectivity, and three, to accommodate
future growth at the airport.
The program ORDNext is anchored by three new facilities,
the Concourse D, which we broke ground last
August on. We are a year into construction on that concourse
now. The future Concourse E, just the west of Concourse D,
and the O'Hare Global Terminal that will replace the existing Terminal 2,
each of which will be connected by an underground consolidated
tunnel.
Here we've listed some of the key projects that are going to be financed by these
bond issuances.
Three of these elements are related to ORDNext, the
Concourse D, which we are currently under construction, the one that we
just recently signed the under budget guaranteed maximum price agreement.
The second, the consolidated tunnel, which we are building out the portions of the
tunnel east and west of Concourse D concurrently with the
Concourse D construction, as well as the related utilities for that
building. The baggage handling system that will feed bags into that
future concourse, as well as ongoing airfield capital improvement
projects that include elimination of a central detention
basin,
the implementation of a virtual ramp control system in our terminal
core. So rather than have physical
ramp control towers, we'll have controllers sitting in a room full of
screens monitoring by camera arrays that we're installing in the
next couple of years.
Taxiway reconstructions for Taxiway November and Taxiway Victor,
as well as a series of grade-separated roads that will divorce vehicular
traffic from interacting with airfield traffic by creating a
network of tunnels throughout the airfield.
In addition to the airfield capital improvement projects, we also have a number of
terminal capital improvement projects in addition to the
ORDNext terminal redevelopment program.
Those include the aforementioned Elevate T3, the Terminal
3 improvement projects, renovations to the Concourse H and K
public area, renovations to the Concourse B and C public
area, as well as just general Terminal 3 HVAC repairs.
This is a non-exhaustive list of the projects that we'll be financing out of these
bonds, but just wanted to highlight some of the key projects that will be
funded by the expected bond issuances.
So Concourse D that we broke ground last August.
Here we have a few pictures of the progress.
On the bottom left, you see an aerial rendering of that future concourse.
On the top right, there's a rendering from the inside of the south end of the
concourse. The top left shows an aerial view of
the tunnel being excavated just to the west of the concourse, as well as
extending south the future leg of the concourse.
Just over this weekend, we had crews on site installing a
195 foot tall crane that will be centered in the middle
of the future node of the building and will
effectively construct the building around it until we need to put the roof on, and
then we'll pull the crane out piece by piece.
We also have some progress pictures of our Elevate T3
project. You see there on the top left the extension of the
concourse between Hs and K. That's future hold rooms that we're
actually turning over to American Airlines for their
operations here just in the next week on July 20th, as
well as future bag room areas and
an updated baggage claim hall that is now open in the basement.
So I just want to reiterate that these bond proceeds are critical for the ability
for us to continue to deliver these capital improvement projects that are aimed
at ensuring that O'Hare increases
operational capacity, has a
better passenger experience, and ultimately will improve
domestic and international connectivity for our passengers.
And just a final point of reiteration, we expect that these
bonds will be exempt from federal income tax, and that the repayment source
will be exclusively airport revenues generated
O'Hare, with no security from other tax revenues or any
other revenues in the city's general fund.
Thank you,
Brendan and Zach.
Chairman O'Shea?
Thank you, Chairman.
No need in belaboring the point, but
this issue needs to be addressed today.
We need to move this forward to continue the important work at our airports.
Thank you.
Any other questions from members of the committee?
Alderman Sposato.
Motion to pass.
Alderman Sposato makes a motion to pass.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass
recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you.
Moving on to item number eight, which is
from
the Department of Finance.
It's a communication recommending Baker Tilly US
LLP, together with its consortium of
minority and women-owned accounting firms, to perform the
City of Chicago's financial statement
audits, beginning with the fiscal year ending
December 31st, 2026.
This communication is to be reported by our
Comptroller,
Mike Belsky, from the Department of Finance.
Commissioner Belsky, let's move it.
I was here on time.
I know you were.
Here we go.
Good morning. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Dowell,
Vice Chair Conway, and members of the Committee on Finance.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee regarding the appointment of
the city's independent financial statement auditor.
Under Section 2-32-210 of the Municipal
Code,
the Comptroller's annual statement, which provides a detailed
report of all receipts and expenditures during the preceding fis...
The statement must be accompanied by the
certification of a public accountant who is not connected with city government
and who has been appointed by this committee.
For the upcoming cycle,
the Department of Finance issued a public request for proposals for
the audit and production of the citywide annual
comprehensive financial report and related financial statement
audit services under specification number
134343.
The audit scope is citywide and includes the citywide ACFR, the
enterprise funds, the treasurer,
the library, airport-related reports, the sales tax
securitization corp, debt compliance letters, and other
related financial statement audit deliverables
historically included in the city's audit process.
I'm glad you came.
On January 14th, 2026, the RFP
solicitation was publicly advertised in the "Chicago
Sun-Times" and the "Chicago Tribune" newspapers on
DOF's website.
To ensure that audit firms were aware of the RFP, DOF also
directly contacted 64 audit firms to notify
them that it has been issued. Proposals were due March
3rd, and five firms submitted responses.
The proposals were reviewed by a seven-member evaluation
committee composed of subject matter experts from the
Department of Finance, the City Treasurer's Office.
After reviewing the written proposals, the two top firms,
Baker Tilly US LLP and Grant Thornton LLP,
were invited to provide oral presentations.
Following those presentations, the evaluation committee reached unanimous
consensus to recommend Baker Tilly US
LLP as the best qualified firm.
This recommendation was based on the evaluation committee's review
under RFP criteria, including
Baker Tilly's proposed transition in plan, senior
level involvement, public sector audit experience,
integrated team structure, and a demonstrated understanding of
the city's complex reporting environment.
The evaluation committee also took into consideration
Baker Tilly's MEB/WEB participation plan,
which reflects a 40% total MEB/WEB,
27% and WEB 12.3%
commitment with certified firms Assigned to substantive
audit workstreams aligned with the city's audit needs.
The proposed 2026 fee schedule totals
2.337.750 million,
including 1.95 million for the citywide audit.
The RFP contemplates an initial four-year term covering fiscal
years 2026 through 2029, with
three one-year extension options for fiscal years
2030 through 2032, subject to final
contract execution and applicable city approvals.
We also want to recognize Deloitte's many years of service to the city.
That's one of the reasons we're making this change.
Deloitte is no longer going to be involved in this type of
business.
They completed this last audit. The Department of
Finance intends to provide a controlled transition to a new
independent auditor while maintaining audit quality,
continuity, accountability, and timely public financial reporting.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Committee of Finance approve the
appointment of Baker Tilly US LLP,
together with its consortium of minority and women-owned
accounting firms, to perform the City of Chicago's financial statement
audits beginning with the fiscal year ending December
31, 2026. I'm now happy to answer
any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Belsky.
Vice Chair Conway.
Thank you, Mr.
Comptroller. So you mentioned that the fee was about
2.3 million, is that right?
Right.
And I assume that's annually for the
next four years, or is there an escalator in there, or is that
inclusive of all four years?
No, that's the annual-
Okay
... cost. And
we tried to match it with what was charged in the past
by Deloitte, and I think we were able to get there.
But is it going to
stay at that number through 2029? Or is it going to...
I'll defer to my
Managing Director of Accounting, Marvin Salo.
Good afternoon, aldermen. This is Marvin, Managing Deputy from Finance.
There is a 4% annual increase-
4%
... in the contract.
Okay. That's all I have. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the committee.
Good afternoon, Comptroller.
A question. I see that in the exhibit that was provided
with the file, there are
five different WMBEs.
Are those Chicago-based WMBEs? Those being Ringgold Financial
Management Services, Prado and Renteria CPAs,
Adelphia, Benford Brown & Associates, and the Bronner Group
LLC.
I believe we have Baker Tilly here can answer that question.
Yeah. Hello. Jason Coyle, principal with Baker Tilly.
They are all-
Excuse me. Could you repeat your name and title for the court reporter?
Sorry. Jason Coyle, principal with Baker Tilly.
They are all local firms, right here in the Chicagoland area
anyway.
And it just says MBE,
WBE. Are they
African American, Latino, women? What are they?
Other than all of the above.
I don't have all the exact-
Thanks. If you can provide that through the chair, we'd appreciate it.
Do you have...
Yeah.
So the names of the firms, Ringgold Financial Management,
Prado and Renteria, Adelphia LLC,
Benford Brown & Associates, and the Bronner Group.
Yeah. That is-
Those are-- So do you know who the principals are in those firms?
There's multiple principals in several of the firms, so I don't have those readily
available.
Okay. Then Madam Chairman, if we could just have how they are classified as-
Yeah, the-
... MBE or WBE,
because that wasn't provided. I'd appreciate that.
Then I have one other question, if I may, with regards to
the... There's four different categories that add up the total.
But the STSC
is something that's only billed to Baker and
Ringgold. Is that for the STSC
bond?
What is that specific section for?
Well, the Sales Tax Securitization Corporation is a standing
body that issues bonds, so they have to be audited
each year. Whether they're issuing debt or not, they still keep
accounts.
Now, my understanding was that that being a self-sufficient body, they wouldn't be
responsible for their own audit. That's part of our...
We have to cover that price?
We cover the
cost of that.
Alderman, Marvin from accounting.
They are a separate legal entity, but in terms of financial reporting, they are
a blended component unit of the city.
So in that terms, they are still part of our budgets.
They are a fund within the city, so they have their own budget for financial-
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman.
Yeah. And let me go back to the question.
My understanding is Ringgold Financial Management Services
is an African American company.
Prado Renteria CPAs is a
Latina
company.
Adelphia LLC is a Latina-Asian
company.
Benford Brown & Associates LLC is an African
American company.
Bronner Group LLC, we would have to get that information.
It's a woman business enterprise. Mm-hmm.
Okay. Thank you. And I would just say, for future reference, on behalf of Alderman
Villegas, who's not here, if we could also start looking at incorporating veterans
and some of the other individuals that we've also pushed for inclusion. Thank you.
Noted
Thank you.
Seeing no other questions for this item, can I get a
motion do pass?
So moved by Alderman Lopez. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
Item number nine-
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bels.
Item number nine, which is the ordinance authorizing the approval of the
ownership transfer pursuant to the Chicago Metered Parking
Systems concession agreement, will be held in committee
based on recent communications. Discussions have
ensued between the city and the parties involved in this item.
The Committee on Finance has received some communication related to that
fact, and consequently, we're going to hold this item
pending further discussion and related documentation.
Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman. And though it's not necessarily customary to ask when you're
going to hold something, I know we were on a deadline for making a
decision, so how will that impact?
We believe we have an extension
for this
vote forthcoming, and as soon as I
have more information
on that, I will pass that to the committee.
Thank you.
Yes. Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So the extension would be beyond the July 24th deadline?
Yes, it would.
Thank you.
Alderman Sposato.
So we don't know yet if it's till September or another month or anything like
that?
I don't have documentation yet on the exact date.
Fair enough. There's-
And as soon as I get it, I will share it with the-
There's been some encouraging rumors going around still, of course, so...
Can't believe everything you hear.
All right.
Moving on to item number 10 is an ordinance amending Section
2-44-140 of the Municipal Code
regarding debt waivers.
We are joined this afternoon by Jim Wheaton, project
manager of homeownership and neighborhood preservation for the Department of
Housing. Mr. Wheaton.
Good afternoon.
Thank you.
I guess we have it up on the screen.
All right, so
this is a request to approve an amendment to an existing
ordinance regarding the waiver of
debt and release of lien for municipal obligations on
properties that are included in a Department of Housing program or
initiative to revitalize neighborhoods.
The existing ordinance has a requirement
for eligibility to take advantage of this
particular debt waiver. That requirement
is, as stated, the property must be included in
a Department of Housing program or initiative and
the property be subject to an abatement proceeding.
That existing ordinance severely limits the ability to include
vacant and distressed properties that are not in abatement
proceedings for programs in which the Department of Housing
is trying to revitalize neighborhoods, like through our Chicago Neighborhood
Rebuild Program or the TIF Purchase Rehab Program or even
the Troubled Buildings Initiative.
So we are asking for an amendment to change the language
so that a property would be eligible for the debt waiver and release of lien
if it were included in a Department of Housing program
or initiative to revitalize neighborhoods or if it is
subject to an abatement proceeding.
So we're changing the both/and to an either/or.
The proposed amendment would empower the commissioner of Department of Housing to
authorize the waiver of debts, release of liens if the property is
included in a DOH program, and it also states that the
Department of Housing commissioner will consult with the commissioner of
buildings in cases where the property is subject to an abatement
proceeding. So we have a timeline.
We started working on this early this year, many meetings between
housing and law, and
we finally arrived at the final version of this
amendment and took it to council. It was referred to the
finance committee. We met. We're meeting with you, and we're asking
for your approval.
Thank you, Jim. Do you have an example of how this might work on the ground?
Well,
for instance, right now we have four properties in the Englewood neighborhood
that are in the housing court processed for forfeiture,
and we would like to have those properties forfeited to an entity
that's part of our Chicago Neighborhood Rebuild Program so that they
can be then conveyed to a developer who will rehab them and
sell them to an owner occupant. However, the housing court
judge has said he will not approve the
forfeiture unless he knows that the city has some skin in the
game, and that means the waiver of debts and the release
of lien. So we have done what we need to do,
and we're hoping that he will now approve it.
So far, we've only used this a number of times,
a limited number of times, in the last couple of years since the ordinance was
first
approved. We've done eight properties.
Two of them were multifamily buildings and the rest were single-family properties.
Of those, six of them were in the 16th Ward,
one is in the 4th Ward, and one is in the 25th Ward.
And the total amount that has been waived and released is
$421,610 for 19
units that were affected.
Thank you for that. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you again, Chairman. Just a quick question
Does this apply to all Department of Housing programs or just
select Department of Housing programs?
To all Department of Housing programs? Or I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
Yeah. Do participants in all Department of Housing programs
have the ability to have
debt waived or is it only in select
programs?
For programs that are focused on revitalizing
neighborhoods by turning vacant, abandoned properties
around to rehabbed homeownership properties.
So-
Or multifamily properties that have been vacant and abandoned that are going to be
redeveloped and rented out to
low to moderate income renters
So we have hundreds of families who are helped annually, thousands that
apply annually for what is formerly known as the Roof and Porch
Program, now operated under the department as the Home Repair
Program. If those individuals who
are in their homes, who may have some
sort of debt or lien or violation that could be addressed but
are getting assistance because they are not financially able to do the
necessary repairs to stay in their homes,
they would be excluded from this, correct?
Well, we have not anticipated the use of this with
that particular program, what you call the Roof and Porch Program
or the Home Repair Program.
Well, it's what the department calls it.
Because the ordinance is really focused on vacant and abandoned and-
But-
... problem properties that are in need of revitalization
and rehab to-
So-
... help the neighborhood.
So helping homeowners revitalize their homes, in particular
our seniors who are struggling, I think would be good and should
be almost part and parcel for revitalizing neighborhoods.
So my question is, does the ordinance as written, because as I
understand it, it's all housing programs, not just the ones you
choose. So is it all housing programs?
And if so, will the department use this
ordinance to help our homeowners, mainly our seniors,
who are struggling and may have violations or debt that we can
help relieve them of, since we've identified them as being needy and
in
need of help from the City of Chicago?
I understand what you're asking. I'm afraid that the answer to that question is
above my pay grade, but I certainly can take it back to the deputy
commissioners and the managing deputy to discuss it.
The Roof and Porch Program, the Home
Repair Program, is often focused on pretty immediate
needs. The process for getting this debt waiver and release of
lien takes several months. So if someone is in
dire need of a new roof and they're
participating in the Home Repair Program,
they may not be in a position to wait two or three months
to get the release of lien and waiver of debt.
So I would welcome any further conversation on this,
Chairman, but I don't necessarily feel comfortable moving forward with this
if we're not focusing on our seniors who are in their homes right now,
who we oftentimes
exclude because they may have debt, which we know that if we're going to
waive debt on a vacant property so someone else can come into a neighborhood and
buy it, then why don't we do the same for those that are still struggling in
our communities?
Okay. Well, all I can say is the amendment does not necessarily rule that
out. But-
It doesn't guarantee it either
... the decision on that is not mine to make.
So-
All right
... then I would, Madam Chairman, I make a motion to table this item until we have
clarification for that other program.
No, I-
I made a... That would be my motion.
Okay. Well, we can, I guess, a motion to table.
We'll take a roll call vote on this.
But I
think that the intended purpose of this
ordinance
is clear, and what you're asking for is something
more specific to add to it,
and I don't know that it could be done
right away.
Okay.
Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Lospada.
Alderman Hopkins.
No.
Alderman Hall.
Alderman Mitchell. Alderman Harris. Alderman Beale.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore. Alderman Curtis. Alderman O'Shea.
No.
Okay. Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor. Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Rodriguez. Alderman Scott.
Alderman Cecilia Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin. Alderman Taliaferro.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Waguespack. Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez.
Alderman Casada. Alderman Mitz.
No.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley. Alderman Knutson.
Alderman Martin. Alderman Silverstein.
Ex Officio Nguyen. Chair Dowell votes no.
The item fails
eight to three. Eight nos, three
yeses.
Can I get a motion to approve item number 10?
So moved by Alderman-
Conway.
All those in favor signify by saying "Aye."
Opposed?
Alderman Lopez, you'll be reported out as a no vote.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass recommendation
will be reported out at the next city council meeting. Thank you, Mr. Wheaton.
Thank you.
Item number 11 is an ordinance authorizing the issuance
of financial assistance to Levy House Preservation
Associates, LP, and the restructuring of
existing city financial assistance to support the
rehabilitation of Levy House Apartments located at
1221 West Sherwin Avenue in the 49th
Ward.
This is a direct introduction, and the item is a direct
introduction by the Department of Housing.
The memorandum from Commissioner Castaneda
requesting a direct introduction of the Levy House financing
ordinance that explains the emergency situation this
necessitates the
expeditious hearing of this matter was forwarded
to all colleagues here, to members of the committee.
We're joined today by Reagan Walsh, Financial Planning
Analyst for the Department of Housing. Mr. Walsh?
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Ann and members of the committee.
Today, I'll be presenting the Levy House Rehabilitation Project.
And just quickly, just want to say we appreciate the flexibility of the chair and
the committee in hearing this item directly.
As you were aware, the memo that was passed around, the
ordinance was introduced in June.
It was inadvertently referred to the Rules Committee and not the Finance Committee.
And so again, we appreciate your consideration.
Today, we are seeking three approvals.
First, the authority to issue up to 15 million in tax-exempt bonds in
support of the project's 4% LIHTC financing.
Second, approval up to 5.5 million in multifamily loan funds.
And third, the authorization to restructure the existing city home loan
on the property.
The Levy House Senior Apartments are located at 1221 West Sherwin
Avenue in the Rogers Park neighborhood within the 49th Ward.
In 2021, POA, Preservation of Affordable Housing, they acquired the building
with city assistance of a 3.75 million city home loan to
stabilize operations and preserve affordability.
Building on that earlier effort, as terms of a project overview,
POA is now proposing a comprehensive recapitalization and moderate rehab of Levy
House through a 4% LIHTC transaction.
The total development costs are approximately 30.4 million.
Upon closing, all 57 units, 56 one bedrooms and one two
bedroom, will be supported by housing assistant payment contracts through
CHA's Project-Based Voucher Program and HUD's Rental Assistance
Demonstration program. The property will continue to serve seniors age 62
and older, with 47 units restricted to households earning up to 50%
AMI, and the remaining 10 units restricted to households earning up to
80% AMI. The planned rehab improvements include replacement of major
building systems, elevator modernization, masonry repairs, upgrades
to residential units, some accessibility improvements, and then other efficiency
enhancements and exterior improvements.
Residents will be relocated on a staggered floor-by-four floor
basis, pursuant to a relocation plan reviewed by both CHA and
DOH, and resident communications are already underway.
The project is anticipated to close this fall, and then construction substantially
complete by May of 2027.
These are just a couple of photos of the Levy House property.
As you can see, it's just a couple of blocks from Lake Michigan lakefront.
On the left are pictures of a typical unit that would be rehabbed, and then on the
right here are some
photos of the parking garage as well as the roof that is slated to be
replaced.
The development team is Preservation Affordable Housing.
The general contractor will be Skender.
The lender is Wintrust Bank, and the syndicator will be Enterprise.
POA will also be the property manager.
The proposed development will be financed with a mix of tax credit equity,
permanent debt, and public subsidy, totaling approximately 30.4 million.
The largest source will be 9.7 million in 4% low-income housing
tax credit equity. Up to 15 million in tax-exempt bonds will be issued for the
funding of construction. It's anticipated that this 15 million in bonds will be
converted to a $4.72 million perm loan.
Additional public financing includes 3.75 from the assumed existing DOH
home loan, 5.5 million from a new city multifamily loan, and 3
million in capital subsidy from the Chicago Housing Authority.
The final sources include construction period income and a seller note and a
deferred developer fee.
The deferred developer fee will help generate additional basis for the 4% LIHTC,
which results in more equity for the project.
On the uses side, the largest component of the budget is construction and rehab
work, totaling approximately 10.2 million.
The remaining cost consists of acquisition basis, financing cost,
reserves, and other soft costs required to complete the transaction.
The project consists of 56 one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom, all of which will
be supported by contracts through 36 CHA project-based
vouchers and 21 HUD Rental Assistant Demonstration Program vouchers.
As said earlier, the rents were provided by
CHA and based on a reasonable rent analysis.
As typical with CHA vouchers, tenants will pay no more than 30% of their income.
Levy House is currently owned by POA, and as part of the transaction, the ownership
will be transferred into a new partnership structure to facilitate the tax credit
financing. Enterprise will serve as the tax credit syndicator.
POA Levy House will be owned by POA, who has also identified the community
builders, or TCB, as a disaffiliated partner entity.
The disaffiliation is primarily a tax credit partnership.
TCB will have no ongoing role with the project's operations or affordability
commitments.
In terms of public benefits, the project will rehab and deliver 57 affordable
senior units. The project will utilize environmentally friendly features and
generate two new permanent jobs, along with estimated 20 construction jobs.
The developer will also comply with all typical city construction
requirements.
I believe. And that is all. These are, again, the requested actions of a, to
issue up to 15 million in tax-exempt bonds to support the project's 4% LIHTC
financing, approval up to 5.5 million in multifamily loan funds,
and third, to the authorization to restructure the existing city home loan.
With that, I'm happy to answer any questions, and there's also representation from
POA here today to help.
Thank you, Mr. Walsh.
We have a question from Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Hadden, you can close.
Vice Chair?
Thank you.
So, the revenue bonds, is that
a short-term issuance until the LIHTC comes, or how
does that work exactly?
So, the 15 point-
Yeah
... the 15 million tax-exempt bonds?
Yeah. So, the city will be the conduit issuer of those bonds, and they'll be
purchased by Wintrust. And then I believe Wintrust is hope-
they'll convert those bonds to permanent, yeah, once stabilization
occurs.
Can you just go back to the sources and uses?
Yeah.
So, the 15 million includes
what will eventually be the equity as well as the perm loan, or?
Just the perm loan. The equity will be the 4% LIHTC credits.
Okay. So, why is the 15 million so much larger than the 4.72?
Good afternoon, everyone. Joe Lewis from the Department of Housing.
Oh, I'm sorry. I was-
There you go.
There we go. I got to work in here.
Sorry.
Joe Lewis from the Department of Housing.
What is represented on the slide is the permanent sources of funds.
That is the component of the capital stack that will be in place
after the tax credit equity is issued and repays a portion of
the 15 million construction period loan funded by our bond
issuance.
Okay. Yeah. That's, I guess, what I assumed it was, but wasn't
sure. Okay. Thank you. What'd you say your name was, Mr.
Joe Lewis, is that right?
That's correct.
Okay, for the sake of the court reporter. Thank you, sir. Absolutely.
From the Department of Housing. I love it. Thank you.
Alderman Hadden.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to the Department of Housing team for bringing this project to fruition
and, of course, for POA and their representatives in the audience.
I would ask that my colleagues support this favorably.
The Levy House has
been there for a while and right before I took office in my first
term, the former owners of the Levy House, the Council on
Jewish Elderly,
sold the building, said they could no longer maintain it.
These 57 units were all affordable, right, for seniors
62 and over. It's in a great location.
It's got multiple elevators, right?
It's got resident services coordinators and a
community of people who really look out for one another.
And so, we were really
relieved when POA was willing to
step up and take on this project.
So, in addition to purchasing and managing,
maintaining, and making some prior upgrades, this is really the big
renovation that the residents have been looking forward to.
This also means that the building will be 100% affordable.
So, the Levy House residents have lived with some uncertainty
for a few years before POA took over, and this
is really going to make a difference, as they can live
peacefully, in a relaxed way, in their homes, knowing
they're not going to have to leave for some time.
Our oldest resident there is 102 years old.
Wow.
Name's Madeline.
And
she still comes to the community meetings that we have there and sits in the front
row because she's hard of hearing, and we have to speak really loud for her.
But,
we're really grateful to POA. They've been a fantastic partner in this.
So, appreciate your favorable support of this project, and thanks for hearing this
as a direct intro, Chair.
Oh, you're welcome, Alderman Hadden.
It's also nice to see affordable housing
steps away from the lakefront.
Alderman Conway moves to pass. All those in favor
signify by saying aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair,
the ayes have it, and will be reported out at the next city council
meeting. Thank you. Item number 12 from the Department
of Housing is an ordinance authorizing the execution of a
redevelopment agreement with Villa Guadalupe Senior
Services Corporation to provide tax increment financing
assistance for the rehabilitation of the Villa Guadalupe
Senior Housing Facility located at 3201 East
91st Street in the 10th Ward. We are joined
by Amisi Creighton from the Department of
Housing.
Ms. Creighton.
Thank you. Thanks, Chair Dial. Good afternoon, everyone, Chairman Dial, and
members of the Finance Committee.
My name is Amisi Creighton, and I'm a financial planning analyst with the
Department of Housing. I am also joined by Angela Hurlock, which is the
CEO of Clare Reich & Associates, and also we have existing
tenants, seniors from Villa Guadalupe, here to show their support.
Where is Ms. Hurlock? There you go.
And her whole group is behind us.
Good to see you-
Yeah
... Ms. Hurlock
Okay. Before you today is an ordinance to authorize the use of TIF funds to
support the rehabilitation of Villa Guadalupe Senior Center, a
proposed rehabilitation of a 53-unit and affordable senior housing
development located at 3201 East 91st Street
in Chicago's
South Chicago neighborhood.
Specifically, DOH requests authorization for the city to provide up to
5.87 million in TIF funds to support the development of this project.
The project is located within the South Chicago TIF District, the South
Chicago Community Area, and the Far South Planning Area within
the 10th Ward. Alderman Peter Chico has provided a letter of support for the
project dated March 20th, 2026.
Displayed is an aerial view of the property, highlighting its location at
the southeast corner of the South Brandon Avenue and East 91st
Street.
The developer is Villa Guadalupe Senior Service Corporation, which is
wholly owned by Claration Associates.
The rehabilitation of Villa Guadalupe, a 53-unit affordable senior
housing development for residents aged 55 and older, is located
in the South Chicago neighborhood.
Built in 1991, the five-story elevator building serves
primarily extremely low-income seniors at risk of homelessness.
The project will undertake comprehensive renovations to modernize aging
infrastructure, enhance energy efficiency, and preserve long-term
affordability. The total TIF funding request is up to
5.87 million, consisting of up to 1.96 million from the
subject TIF districts of South Chicago and porting up to
1.96 million from Lake Calumet Area Industrial and
Commercial Avenue TIF. The total development costs are 16.7
million, and construction is expected to begin in late winter of
2026 and anticipated to be completed by summer
2028.
Villa Guadalupe Senior Services Corporation, which is an affiliate of Claration
Associates, serves as the lead developer.
Claration Associate is a BIPOC-led, total certified
nonprofit organization led by Angela Hurlock,
founded in 1981, focused on strengthening the South Shore
community through affordable housing, community engagement, and violence
prevention.
Claration Associates also has previous experience with the city on projects such as
Casa Kirk, 9100 South Burley, and Sacred Apartments.
Now, Canopy Architecture and Design serves as the project
architect and has previous experience in affordable housing developments.
Power and Sense Construction Company will serve as the project's GC.
That is a minority-owned general contracting and construction management firm.
This firm has extensive experience delivering affordable and mixed-income housing
as well with the
city. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic serves as the legal counsel for the
transaction. And lastly, IDA will be the
project's primary funding source.
Displayed outline in the black square represents the development.
The site is well-served by neighborhood amenities including a supermarket, Two
Bucks West, a pharmacy, several banks, additional retail,
and a park, all within walking distance.
It also benefits from strong transit access with the CTA bus line
30 stop at the property and Metra Electric District's
93rd Street station, all within walking
proximity to support residents'
daily needs.
This image illustrates the property's significant physical deterioration,
including the installation of protective scaffolding to
mitigate the risk of falling masonry, which presents a serious
life and safety hazard. The building is also experiencing substantial
water infiltration due to the deteriorated condition of the existing
masonry facade. To address these deficiencies, the rehabilitation
will include repair of all deteriorated masonry, application of
a parch court over the existing masonry facade, installation
of a high-performance rain screen facade system incorporating
continuous air barrier and continuous exterior insulation.
This building envelope improvement is designed to enhance moisture
protection, energy efficiency, and long-term durability.
In addition, a new roofing system with permanent safety davits
will be installed to eliminate ongoing water intrusion.
The proposed rehabilitation also includes
the addition of a second stretcher-size elevator to improve
accessibility, installation of a backup generator to enhance
building resiliency, comprehensive facade restoration as stated
before, replacement of all windows, exterior doors, and
selective structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing upgrades
to support building performance and safety.
Presented here is a rendering illustrating the building's anticipated appearance
upon completion of the proposed improvements.
Shown is a typical apartment interior.
Illustrating the need for substantial upgrades, as existing finishes, fixtures, and
building systems no longer meet current standards.
The proposed rehabilitation will require the temporary relocation of all
46 out of 53 occupied households during the
anticipated 12 to 18-month construction period.
Residents will be relocated to comparable temporary
housing with placement alongside family members when
appropriate to minimize disruption and ensure continuity of
care. Each household will relocate twice, first to temporary
housing at the start of construction, and then back to their
rehabilitated unit upon project completion.
No permanent displacement is anticipated.
Because the project also includes federal funding through IDA,
relocation activities will be governed by both the URA and the
2019 Chicago Housing Preservation Ordinance.
The developer will administer the relocation plan with
assistance from their contractor, Urban
Relocation Services, Inc.,
who will provide on-site relocation management and resident support throughout
construction. After closing, IDA and DOH
will monitor
compliance with application relocation requirements.
The Villa Guadalupe rehabilitation will be financed through a combination of
funding from IDA and the city, with a total development budget of approximately
16.7 million. This includes the refinance of the
existing IDA Affordable Housing Trust Fund and trust fund loans
into a new trust fund loan totaling 4.4
million, as well as the National Housing Trust Fund grant of
6.5 million, all totaling 10.5 million on the
sources. The City of Chicago of Housing will provide up to
5.87 million in TIF tax increment financing.
The project's total development cost is approximately 316 per unit,
but the City of Chicago funds per unit is only 110,000 per
unit. The 16.7 million development budget includes
approximately 620,000 for land and building acquisition,
10.5 million in hard construction costs, and a $1 million construction
contingency for unforeseen conditions.
Soft costs are estimated at 2.1 million, which include professional services,
financing costs, insurance, and taxes.
The budget also includes one million for tenant relocation, and a
1.5 million
developer fee. The development consists of
54 residential units, including one studio, 48
one-bedroom, and five two-bedroom units, all reserved for
households earning no more than 50% of the area median income, with the
majority of it at 30% AMI.
Annual household incomes for residents earning 30% of
the AMI range from about 25 to 36,000
for households of one to four people.
And by comparison, households earning 15% AMI have annual
income ranges from 42 to 61,000. Now, this
project primarily serves extremely low-income seniors households at risk of
homelessness. Rental assistance for 35 units consisting of
32 one-bedroom units and
three two-bedroom units is
provided through CLF subsidy, which has supported the project since its
original development. This subsidy will remain in place following completion
of the rehabilitation, ensuring continued affordability of these units.
Additionally, IDA has conditionally approved 13 one-bedroom Section 8
11 rental units subsidies to further strengthen long-term
affordability for eligible residents.
The development also promotes accessibility, with approximately 20% of the
units or 10 units are designed to meet Type A or Section
504 accessibility standards for residents with disability.
Here is a development chart for your review, showing Claritian Associates is
100% owner of the development entity of Villa Guadalupe
Senior Services Corporation. The project's TIF
assistance will be dispersed in four installments over the course of construction
and project completion. Up to 30% of the total TIF funding will be
reimbursed upon achieving 30% of construction completion,
an additional 30% at 60% completion, an additional
30% at 90% completion, and the remaining
10% upon issuance of certificate of completion.
To support the total TIF request of 5.87 million, up
to 1.96 million will be ported from each of the adjacent Lake Calumet
area, Industrial and Commercial Avenue TIF districts, in addition to
funding from the South Chicago TIF district.
The project team is committed to meeting or exceeding the city's minority and
woman-owned business enterprise.
Participation goals include at least 26
participation of MBE and 6% of
WBE, as well as complying with the city's local hiring and workforce
participation requirements throughout construction.
The proposed rehabilitation will preserve and modernize Villa Guadalupe,
a 53-unit affordable senior housing
development that has not undergone a substantial rehabilitation
since its construction in 1991. The project will
address significant deferred maintenance, including aging building
system, deteriorating façade conditions,
deferred maintenance,
outdated unit interiors, while incorporating energy efficient and
environmentally sustainable improvements to enhance long-term building
performance. Villa Guadalupe provides critically needed affordable
housing for extremely low-income seniors who are at a heightened risk of housing
instability and homelessness. Following our rehabilitation,
all 53 units will remain affordable to households earning at or
below 50% of the AMI, with the majority of the units reserved
for seniors earning at or below 30%
AMI for a minimum affordability period for 30 years.
The preservation of Villa Guadalupe will protect a vital source of deeply
affordable senior housing in South Chicago community, where the
demand for quality, affordable housing for low-income
older adults substantially exceeds the available needs.
The project will also provide permanent supportive housing support through two
on-site case managers who will coordinate health, social, and supportive
services for residents. In addition, the development benefits from
convenient access to public transportation, and it will create 30
temporary construction jobs during rehabilitation and will
retain three permanent on-site positions after completion.
So in conclusion, the ordinance before you requests authorization for the
city to provide up to 5.87 million in TIF funds to support the
development of the project. This concludes my presentation.
I appreciate your time and consideration for the rehabilitation of Villa
Guadalupe. Thank you.
Ms. Hurlock, I have one question. Has Claritian,
have the Claritian Associates, are you all the original owners of
the property? Did you build this?
We did build it in 1991.
And why would it take 30 years to put
some money into it to rehab it? What happened?
So yeah, we've had some minor
rehabilitations over the years, but nothing major like this.
The thing that makes the Villa Guadalupe very unique is that
no federal funding was used to actually build it.
And so when it was built in 1991, as most of you will know,
HUD supported senior facilities start at the age of 62.
We start at 55. Without that funding, we were able to
be very flexible with what type of seniors we were able to allow to
live. And so documentation, which might have been an issue in other
areas, was not an issue in this particular development.
So we've had seniors that have been there since day one.
Our oldest senior, not at this point in time, because she's transitioned on, but at
one point in time, our oldest senior in independent living was 101 years old.
Okay, and do you pay property taxes?
We do not. We are exempt as a senior building.
Okay.
Any other questions from members of the...
Vice Chair Conway moves to pass. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes
have it, and the due pass recommendation will be reported out at the next
city council meeting. Thank you, Ms. Hurley.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Creighton.
Item number 13 is an ordinance amending the original
ordinance by replacing DCNC with Friends of
Downtown as the developer and amending the TIF
redevelopment agreement to include revisions to the residential
project at 135 South LaSalle Street in the
34th Ward. We're joined by Ryan Slattery
from the Department of Housing for this presentation.
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, Chair Dowdell, members of the Committee of Finance.
For the record, my name is Ryan Slattery.
I'm a financial planning analyst for the Department of Housing.
I'm here today to present the TIF RDA
amendment for 135 South LaSalle.
The requested action before you is to authorize the amendment to the TIF
redevelopment agreement with Field Building Revitalization Partners LLC to replace
Downtown Chicago Neighborhood Council NFP with Friends of
Downtown, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation.
There is no additional money requested within this action.
The project's located at 135 South LaSalle in the 34th Ward, Loop community
area, and LaSalle Central TIF districts.
Here's just the context of where the Field Building's located.
It's bordered by Clark Street to the east, LaSalle to the west, Monroe Place to the
north, and then Adams to the south.
The applicant, Field Building Revitalization Partners LLC, plans to adapt a reuse
and conversion and intends to spend $241 million for the project that will
convert 350,000 square feet located on levels five through
15 into 393 residential units, of which
118 or 30% will be affordable for households with average
incomes no more than the 60% AMI.
The project will also feature residential amenities on levels five
and 25 that will include 16,200 square feet of indoor
amenity and outdoor amenity space.
The construction timeline for this project is anticipated to start in Q3 of 2026,
very soon, and completed in Q4 2027.
The development team is a joint venture between Riverside Investments, AIMTrust
Realty, and DL3 Realty.
The owner is Field Building Revitalization Partners LLC.
The architect is SCB. The attorney is DLA Piper, or actually
Croak
Fairchild, sorry.
And the general contractor is a joint venture between W. E.
O'Neil and GMA.
The proposed unit mix was also changed slightly, which now includes 70%
AMI units to match the ARO guidelines.
For purposes of this project, the breakout will include commercial, shown in
pink, residential in orange, indoor amenity space in tan,
and then outdoor amenity space in the darker green.
Here's just some renderings that we have seen before.
Again, there is no change in city assistance for this project with the TIF RDA
amendment. Here's the anticipated breakout of the sources and
uses. For the sources, there'll be owner's equity,
a loan for the project, TIF funds, and then historic tax credit equity.
Again, as stated previously, the requested action before you is to authorize the
TIF RDA
amendments, with the Field Building Revitalization to replace Downtown Chicago
Neighborhood Council NFP with Friends of Downtown, an Illinois not-for-profit
corporation.
Alderman Conway and Riley have provided letters of support for this project.
I'm here today with Jeff Cohen in the box, and then also the development team,
comprising of Riverside, AIMTrust, and DL3.
Thank you, Mr. Slattery. We do have a letter of support from Alderman
Riley and Conway.
Alderman Conway, would you like to-
Sure. Yes. By the way, let Mr. Cohen go home
for-
I know
... God's sakes. You and I have put him through enough today.
But
beyond that, to paraphrase Mr. Slattery, in summary, this is really a
perfunctory change. Mr. Mark Hopkins is here from
the developer. And
he was a small child when this meeting started. Tough room. All right.
But anyway, this is a perfunctory change and a great project, and I'd ask you all
to consider it. Thank you.
Any other questions on this item?
Motion to do pass by Alderman Conway.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass recommendation will
be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Slattery.
The last item for consideration today is item number 14 from
the Department of Planning and Development.
It is an ordinance authorizing the execution of an intergovernmental
agreement with the Chicago Transit Authority to provide tax
increment financing assistance for improvements at the
Division/Austin bus turnaround project, located
at the intersection of Division and Austin
Boulevard, in the 29th Ward.
We're joined by Erin Fiorini from the
CTA, who will be making this presentation.
Good afternoon, Chairwoman Dowell and members of the committee.
My name is Erin Fiorini, and I'm the Vice President of Infrastructure Program
Oversight at the Chicago Transit Authority.
Today, I will be presenting CTA's TIF request to make improvements to the Division
and Austin CTA bus turnaround in the Austin commercial area.
This project is located at 1157 North Austin Boulevard in
the 29th Ward of Alderman Taliaferro within the Austin
community area, the Austin Commercial TIF District, and the Austin planning area.
This project is supported by Alderman Taliaferro, and the CTA has also
received a letter of support from Alderman Mitts.
This slide just shows an aerial of the bus turnaround site.
The site is highlighted in red.
Current conditions at the bus turnaround show aging infrastructure conditions.
The photo on the slide shows the windbreak shelter for customers to stand under as
they wait for a bus.
The windbreak and canopy is past its useful life and needs
replaced, along with the concrete, painting, and lighting upgrades.
Behind the bus shelter is the operator toilet room, along with a small green space,
which both will receive improvements.
In front of the bus shelter canopy is where the bus turnaround driveway is located,
and from the pictures, you can see broken and uneven concrete.
Additionally, these are current conditions of the interior of the bus stop,
of the bus shelter canopy, and the deterioration of the metal structures of the
canopy, peeling paint, old concrete, and outdated lighting.
This project will upgrade the CTA's bus turnaround at the intersection of West
Division and North Austin. Improvements include concrete repairs, curb
reconstruction, the installation of new windbreaks with canopies,
upgraded lighting, and renovations to the employee bathroom.
CTA is seeking TIF funds to fund the total cost of this project in the amount of
$1,066,675.
If funds are awarded, the project will be completed by CTA internal forces,
and construction will start in the third quarter of 2026, and will be completed
by the first quarter of 2028. Materials and services needed to
complete the work will be done with existing CTA contracts.
As stated on the previous slide, the project will cost
$1,066,675 and will be 100%
funded from the Austin Commercial TIF.
All of the funding will support the work at this bus turnaround.
There is one other ward in this area, which is Ward
37, with 64% of total TIF area.
This slide shows the proposed rehabilitation of the current
bus turnaround. Improvements include the concrete repairs, curb
reconstruction, installation of new windbreaks with canopies, the upgraded
lighting, and renovations to the employee bathroom.
The project will provide many benefits.
First, this project will address the concerns of customers and the community.
This bus turnaround has not received an upgrade, and the work required at this
location extends beyond CTA's current capital program funding
allocation of this type of work. Second, this project will
address public safety through improvements that will eliminate uneven pavement
surfaces, create weather protection elements with the improvements made to the
windbreak and its canopy, upgrade lighting that will provide increased
visibility and improve mobility at the bus turnaround, increase
accessibility for passengers with disabilities.
And finally, this project will execute strategic priorities by expanding
upon the CTA's Refresh and Renew program to reach more locations than currently
budgeted.
This concludes the presentation of the Division/Austin bus turnaround.
If there are questions, I can answer those, and we also have Jeff Cohen from DPD on
hand as well if there are further questions on the TIF.
I don't think we'll be needing Jeff Cohen on this one.
Yeah.
Alderman Taliaferro.
Thank you, Madam.
Congratulations. I know this location.
Yes. And Chairwoman, as you know, this location is in
much need of renovation. So let me just thank the members of
planning and representatives of CTA as well for
making this a much better community.
And I thank them
for their hard work bringing this before your committee.
And so they certainly have my support, and with that, Chairwoman, I move for do
pass.
Right. Motion made by Alderman Taliaferro to
move do pass on this item. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Opposed. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass
recommendation will be reported out. Thank you, Ms. Fiorini.
Thank you.
There being no further business before the committee today, can I get a motion to
adjourn? So moved by Alderman Burnett- Miss Lee ...
to adjourn. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
The opposed say nay. In the opinion of the chairs, the ayes
have it, and the Committee on Finance is hereby adjourned.