1. When entering or exiting the gallery
2. When providing public comment during the portion of a meeting, set aside for that purpose
or 3. When asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive or defamatory behavior or speech
which in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms
may lead to a breach of the peace or disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting
is not permitted. Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet,
waving of arms, throwing any item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances
are not permitted when in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms
such actions are disrupting or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant at arms,
is prohibited in the gallery. Such items include, but are not limited to,
1. Any pointed objects, including knives of any kind
2. Banners, flyers or other forms of signage
3. Food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters
4. 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
5. 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 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, 2023-2027
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,
1. When entering or exiting the gallery.
2. When providing public comment during the portion of a meeting, set aside for that purpose.
Or 3. When asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant at arms,
is prohibited in the gallery. Such items include, but are not limited to,
1. Any pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
2. Banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
3. Food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters.
4. Backpacks, large bags, and sealed packages.
Clear bags, not tinted in color, that do not exceed 12 inches by 6 inches by 12.
5. Are permitted and subject to search.
And 5. 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 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 2023-2027
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, 1.
When entering or exiting the gallery, 2.
When providing public comment during the portion of a meeting, set aside for that purpose, or
3.
When asked to rise and be acknowledged by a member of the City Council.
Profane, threatening, harassing, abusive, or defamatory behavior, or speech, which in the
judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms may lead to a breach of the peace,
or disrupt the orderly conduct of the meeting, is not permitted.
Disruptive or distracting actions, such as the stomping of feet, waving of arms, throwing
any item, whistling, booing, shouting, or other loud utterances, are not permitted when
in the judgment of the meeting's chair or the sergeant at arms, such actions are disrupting
or impeding the orderly conduct of the meeting.
Any item that poses a potential safety hazards, as determined by the sergeant at arms, is prohibited
in the gallery.
Such items include, but are not limited to, 1.
Any pointed objects, including knives of any kind.
2.
Banners, flyers, or other forms of signage.
3.
Food and beverages, including in glass or metal canisters.
4.
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 5.
Firearms, ammunition, fireworks, laser pointers, stun guns, tasers, mace pepper spray.
Good morning, everyone.
Welcome back from summer vacation, although we know we really don't take a vacation during
that month of August.
But the Committee on Finance is now called to order.
We'll have a roll call to establish quorum.
Good morning.
Yes, ma'am.
Alderman Laspata, Alderman Hopkins, excuse me, Alderman Hall, Alderman Mitchell, Alderman
Harris, Alderman Beal, Alderman Lee, Alderman Ramirez, Alderman Quinn, Alderman Lopez, Alderman
Curtis, Alderman O'Shea, Alderman Taylor, Alderman Rodriguez, Alderman Scott, Alderman
Alderman Cicho Lopez, Alderman Burnett, Alderman Irvin, Alderman Taliaferro, Alderman Cardona, Alderman
Wagesbach, Alderman Rodriguez-Sanchez, Alderman Cazada, Alderman Villegas, Alderman Spazado, Alderman
Vasquez, Alderman Riley, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Martin, Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell is here.
We have a quorum.
We have 16 Alderman present.
Alderman Moore, Mitts, Mosley, Conway, and Hopkins have requested to participate remotely at
today's meeting for reasons stated under the provisions of Rule 59.
Can I have a motion to allow these Aldermen to participate?
Bye-bye.
Thank you.
So moved by Alderman Cazada.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the motion carries.
I'd like to confirm Alderman Moore.
Alderman Moore is present, Chairman.
Thank you.
Alderman Mitts, Alderman Mosley.
Present.
Alderman Conway, Alderman Hopkins are present and have joined the meeting.
I'd like to also add Alderman Irvin to this request for Rule 59.
May I have a motion to allow him since I already took the motion?
So moved by Alderman Cazada.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Opposed, Alderman Cazada, we see you and the motion carries.
And Alderman Irvin is in to participate remotely.
Alderman Irvin.
At this time, we will begin the public comment period.
The public comment period is limited to 30 minutes.
Out of respect for everyone's time, each speaker is limited to three minutes.
We do not have any callers that have requested to speak at today's meeting.
So we'll begin with the first person, who is Zoe Lee.
Alderman Ciccio Lopez has joined us and will be counted towards quorum.
Hello, hello.
Good morning.
As you know, it's budget season four.
My favorite, favorite meeting.
My favorite, favorite meeting because it's the finance meeting.
And then I can see how much money y'all be laundering.
So for the last three years, I've been seeing y'all launder so much money.
But since Brandon decided that he's going to try again and no one is going to vote for him,
they barely signing his signatures outside.
So while y'all trying to push us out of all the public events that our taxpayer pay for when we're getting Danielle's signatures,
they don't even want to sign his at all.
So I don't know, you know, what are y'all going to do?
But I'm going to tell you about y'all first affordable housing development disaster scam, the one Earl Residence, West Englewood.
So last week, somebody went to go check on or tried to look at one of the units in there.
And unfortunately, one of the pipes burst automatically.
So not understanding how the pipes are bursting.
But I do see that you guys had a main construction permit number one zero one zero three four five six eight that was issued in June twenty twenty four with a declared construction value of twenty five million dollars.
Now, I could try to for you to see who the plumbing people are, and I'm pretty sure it's somebody that they went and found as the African-American MBE part to get the TIF money and stuff like that.
And probably had no idea how to do plumbing in a school that isn't even fixed.
I mean, even isn't put together to be apartments like the way that y'all launder our property tax money.
And then decide that y'all think that y'all are going to keep raising it up in certain areas just to hurry up to get us up out of the community to continue to launder and get these kickbacks when no one knows construction at all.
Y'all spent six hundred and ninety eight thousand dollars per unit for the Earl Residence.
And the pipe is bursting and y'all just did the ribbon cut August twenty six.
Mold already.
This is how mold continues to happen in our communities, because y'all do not have the people that know how to do plumbing because y'all don't care because y'all stealing and y'all all stealing.
Everybody is stealing.
That's why none of y'all in jail yet.
So we got to get Danielle in office so we can do these forensic audits.
I don't care how many people that y'all going to get to create content.
I was the original political content creator by accident.
If I really have to start going out here, I will.
Y'all are sick.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Jessica Jackson.
OK, Chairwoman Pat Diles.
I'm going to talk to you directly because I'm not talking to the other people in the chamber because they're not paying attention.
So I'm going to talk to you.
So as it pertains to finance.
I need to know what exactly are the line items that you all are accounting for.
Because there's no accounting, real accounting of what's going on with the city's money.
Now, the most interesting part of your job that I find from sitting in here all these years is when you doing city council meetings,
get up and talk about the settlements that the city of Chicago have paid to people.
And clearly, it's a connection there between what the city pays and what the county pays.
So what I would like for you to do, because we've discussed my case before, I want you to research and I have the case number here.
I want you to research how much money that the city has already spent on my case.
How much have they spent with the law firm, private law firm, Robbins and Demonte?
Robbins, R-O-B-B-I-N-S, Demonte, D-I-M-O-N-T-E.
I hope the stenographer is getting that.
And I want you to see how much I want to see, I'm requesting that as a taxpayer, as a constituent, and you're the chairperson of finance.
And I want to see how much money that this city, the city of Chicago, has paid to participate in a knowingly illegal eviction against me and my property.
I want to know how much money have they paid, Robbins and Demonte, to put this, for me to have to fight this in an appellate court.
Then the appellate judges cheated for them and didn't allow me to have oral arguments, because they didn't want it on record.
So now it's appealed in the Illinois Supreme Court.
Because I'm trying to figure out how y'all think you're going to evict me out of my property, and my name is on the deed, and it's paid for.
And my mother bequeathed it to me in the will.
So I just want to know.
I'm going to catch you at the end of this.
I'm going to wait for however long the meeting take.
I'm going to give you the numbers, because you told me before to talk to, did I go to Mary Richardson Laurie about it, Corporation Council.
And I showed you the letter where Mary Richardson Laurie lied with John Hendricks and said my mother didn't have a will.
I want to know how much money has been spent on my case.
All right?
Thank you, Ms. Jackson.
The next speaker is George Blakemore.
And I'd like to, while he's coming to the mic, I want to acknowledge Alderman Mitts, who's joined us, and will be counted towards quorum.
Mr. Blakemore, do you have eyes?
Yes.
Can you see?
Yes.
Do you see empty seats?
Yes.
I'm just amazed.
No, I'm not using the right term.
You deserve the government you get, you black ones, you white ones, you Hispanic, you Asian, you Arabs, you Jews, or whatever.
You see, there's nobody here.
Nobody is here.
That should tell you something to one of the most important committees in the city, finance.
So I don't know if I should get up and advocate for black people at all when they don't have a damn enough sense to advocate for themselves.
Look!
It's empty.
What then, when the seats are all empty of men, look, and women, the blacks in those hell ghettos should be packed in here like sardines.
On the plantation, the white man made a nigger.
He looks like one.
He acts like one.
He talks like one.
He smells like one.
Mr. Blakemore, you cannot use this type of language in this place.
The altman used it.
That altman, that Puerto Rican altman used it.
A nigger.
He knew that they was niggers.
coercion.
co-400 Heights haunt.
See you next time,
can you?
See you next time.
No, this is nowhere.
Please let us
Niggas would accept apology.
A nigger?
Where are the niggas?
Where are the black men and women?
I'm not talking about Hispanics.
They got more sense.
The Asians got more sense.
The whites got more sense.
On the plantation, the white man made a damn nigger.
They should be packed here like sardines.
They got a nigger here, a nigger there,
a nigger Osborne, a nigger president,
a nigger Cook County, a nigger police chief,
a nigger here, a nigger there, a nigger everywhere.
But when you get the government you deserve
and you deserve the government you get,
you low-lighting niggers.
Don't get to all my people, niggers.
That's not nice, Mr. Blakemore,
because on the plantation, the white man made a nigger.
And he made them with mental problems.
You don't love your nappy hair, your big nose,
your thick lips, or your black booty hole.
Where are they?
They weren't slaves in America.
These Asians, they weren't slaves in America.
Our next speaker is Patricia Puente.
And we will count, who was that that just walked in?
Alderman Burnett as a member of quorum.
Got you.
Ms. Puente?
Good morning.
Good morning.
I have a big concern regarding the Hispanics.
And I'm an Hispanic, too.
But when I hear that they, when all the stores are being closed,
they're closing all the stores and saying,
oh, we know that the government is going to give us money
to reopen these stores.
We get this money free because we don't have to pay it back.
I'm like, did I hear this on the bus with two Hispanic men saying that?
And they started saying, let's go back to Mexico
and let's see who works their jobs.
Do we really need them?
No, we don't.
And the reason is because our pilgrims worked.
Irish, Muslims, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, all nationalities worked.
The Hispanics did not begin this nation or made up this nation,
this beautiful nation that welcomes everybody.
And the only thing we ask is for them to respect it.
I was awakened at 1130 in the morning by some Hispanic people that are immigrants
with their loud music.
And they said, what?
We don't care.
This is not our country.
Excuse me?
We just tell ICE that they are not allowed to come inside the building.
No, ICE isn't a law enforcement.
The sheriff is the law enforcement.
The police in blue are law enforcement.
And that's why there's rules and regulations in the United States of America.
But when they start saying, we don't want ICE, are they hiding something?
Are they beating up their women and having 9K weapons in their apartments, grenades in their apartments?
I've gone to the meetings, to the judge, where these immigrant women go in front of a judge and say, my husband is beating me.
And they cannot do anything because the blue shirt police, when they are called, they're Hispanic.
And they're like, you know what, turn around and leave because we will give you money under the table.
Are you kidding me?
No.
ICE is welcome in the United States of America.
Thank you.
And there is the law ordinance.
Noise ordinance 1961, Section 27.
If the noise interferes before or after hours, I have the right to call the police and for them to lower their music.
How hard is it for them to lower the music?
It's 1130 in the morning.
It's 12 midnight.
It's 1 o'clock in the morning.
Thank you.
That is the end of the public comment period.
The items before the committee, we have a total of 10 items on the agenda this morning.
We'll begin with the approval of the July 2026 and the August 2026 monthly Rule 45 reports from the Committee on Finance.
This report was sent electronically to everyone.
And if there are no questions, can I get a motion to approve the July and August 2026 monthly Rule 45 reports motion made by Alderman Mitts?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.
And the motion carries.
Alderman Ramirez and Alderman Mitchell and Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez, not Alderman Mitchell.
Hey, Alderman Mitchell, I didn't see you, but I saw Alderman Ramirez, so we will count you all towards quorum.
Item number one on the agenda is miscellaneous.
It's one proposed order authorizing the payment of various small claims against the city of Chicago, a direct introduction.
The list of payments approved was sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no objections, these will be placed in the omnibus.
Item number two is a proposed order denying the payment of various small claims against the city of Chicago, also a direct introduction.
This list of payments denied was sent electronically to everyone.
And if there are no objections, these two will be placed on the omnibus.
Item number three is three proposed orders authorizing charitable solicitation on the public way, permits for the following organizations.
These were direct introductions.
Oxfam America for a citywide permit from September 24, 2026 to March 31, 2027.
Plan International USA citywide for September 24, 2026 to June 30, 2027.
And the Salvation Army North Central Illinois Division for a citywide permit, November 1, 2026 to December 24, 2026.
If there are no objections, these permits are approved and will be placed on file with the clerk.
Item number four is from the Department of Law, a communication transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts, judgments and settlements were entered into for the month of July, 2026 and August, 2026.
These reports were also sent electronically to everyone.
If there are no objections, these items will be placed on file with the clerk.
We will count Alderman Harris towards quorum and move on to item number five.
Item number five are four proposed ordinance orders authorizing the Corporation Council to enter into and execute settlement agreements in the following case.
The first one we'll hear is Lorenzo Williams versus City of Chicago et al.
Case number 2026 L007227 in the amount of $225,000.
And this case will be reported to us by Victoria Benson, the Deputy Corporation Counsel.
Good morning, Ms. Benson.
Good morning, Chair Dahl.
Good morning, committee members.
I'm Victoria Benson, Deputy Corporation Counsel with the Mass Torts and Complex Litigation Division.
I am here today to request your approval to settle a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Lorenzo Williams to recover damages for Chicago police officers used to force against him on July 30, 2024.
Primarily, how's that?
Primarily that by Officer Michael Donnelly.
Plaintiff's lawsuit names the City of Chicago and Officers Michael Donnelly and Joseph Vecchio as defendants and alleges federal and state law claims against them.
Against the officers, plaintiff alleges federal excessive force claim.
Against the City, plaintiff alleges assault and battery and Monell claims.
The Law Department recommends a settlement in this matter in the amount of $225,000.
On July 30, 2024, Chicago police officers assigned to monitor pod cameras in the 18th District saw an individual on a video feed reach into his waistband and pull up the handle of a firearm and place it back into his waistband.
Several officers, including officers Michael Donnelly and Joseph Vecchio, then went to the 800 block of North Cambridge Avenue where the individual was seen with the firearm.
When the officers arrived, the individual, now known to be Plaintiff Lorenzo Williams, tried to run away but was taken down to the ground by Officer Vecchio and another officer.
Officers then attempted to handcuff Plaintiff while he was on the ground.
Plaintiff, however, kept his arms close to his chest while Officer Vecchio and two other officers grabbed his arms and told him to put his arms behind his back.
At this point, Officer Donnelly exited his police.
vehicle and ran to where the plaintiff was on the ground being held by other officers.
As he did so, Officer Donnelly pointed his firearm at plaintiff and yelled obscenities
at plaintiff while threatening to shoot him.
As additional officers arrived on scene, in part to assist with the gathering crowd,
Officer Donnelly holstered his firearm and placed his foot on plaintiff's right shoulder,
which then slipped onto his neck, while Officer Vecchio held plaintiff's head against the
sidewalk and pulled plaintiff's dreadlocks.
According to Officer Donnelly, he then saw plaintiff reach toward his waistband,
which led him to believe plaintiff was reaching for a firearm.
Officer Donnelly then struck plaintiff in the head three times with his handheld police radio.
As he did so, other officers continued to hold plaintiff to the ground,
including Officer Vecchio, who was holding plaintiff's head to the ground by his hair.
Officer Donnelly then unholstered his firearm and closely pointed it at plaintiff's head,
profanely threatening that plaintiff was going to get shot.
Officers were ultimately able to gain control of both of plaintiff's arms
and recover a fully loaded firearm from plaintiff's waistband.
However, officers still continued to struggle to place handcuffs on plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff, during the struggle, an unknown officer punched him in the stomach,
leading him to urinate in his pants.
Plaintiff was ultimately handcuffed and placed into a marked police vehicle.
He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon,
aggravated assault against a police officer, and four counts of resisting arrest.
Plaintiff ultimately pled guilty to possession of the firearm that was recovered from his waistband
and was sentenced to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.
He has since been released and is on parole.
After being taken to the police station for processing,
plaintiff was taken by ambulance to the hospital to be treated for his injuries.
Police reports and evidence technician photographs document injuries,
including abrasions to plaintiff's face above his right eye,
as well as a bump and a scrape on the left side of his forehead,
consistent with where Officer Donnelly was striking plaintiff in the head with his hand-hulled radio.
Plaintiff also claims that Officer Vecchio ripped braids out of his head
and that he suffered a fractured thumb as a result of this incident.
Given the risks associated with proceeding to trial in this case,
we recommend settling this matter for $225,000.
Thank you, Ms. Benson.
Alderman Riley and Alderman Taylor will be counted towards quorum.
Are there any questions from members of the committee on this case?
Alderman Riley.
So, would the plaintiff have any of these injuries had he not resisted arrest?
I mean, quite possibly no.
However, use of force guidelines of the Chicago Police Department
recommend against using handheld radios as an impact weapon.
I understand that he had resisted arrest.
However, Officer Donnelly's decisions about what force to use will be difficult to fend.
Despite the fact that the plaintiff had a gun fully loaded in his waistband.
Correct.
And so, by settling this case, what message are we sending to
others who might choose to unlawfully own a firearm and resist arrest?
I think we should also think about the message that we're sending to officers
who choose to use methods of force that are not authorized by the police guidelines.
Do you know how many police officers have been shot in the last two years in the city of Chicago?
I don't, but a significant number.
And so, it's understandable that when responding to a tense situation where you know you have an armed
offender, that perhaps people will have to make extra effort to get that weapon away from the offender?
Perhaps, but I think we also need to remember that when Officer Donnelly used the force that he did,
Mr. Williams was being held by several other officers.
And how many times did the police tell the offender to stop resisting arrest?
I don't know off the top of my head, but certainly more than five, maybe ten.
And how long did the struggle last?
It's a few minutes.
It's not very long.
A few minutes.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I'll be voting no.
And thank you, Alderman Riley.
Any other questions for Alderman Quinn, followed by Alderman Lopez?
I'd like to be recorded as no.
I haven't called for a vote yet, but I hear you.
Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.
Did Mr. Williams have any drugs or alcohol in his system at the time?
Not that I'm aware of.
So, this was just a rage-fueled resistance?
I don't know that I would call it rage-fueled, but it was resistance.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alderman O'Shea will be counted towards quorum.
Alderman Nugent?
Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Pursuant to my role as President Pro Temp under Rule 36, I intend to participate and vote on matters today as an ex-officio member.
Thank you.
Okay.
You will be counted towards quorum.
Can I get a motion to approve item number 5A?
So, move by.
Madam Chair.
I didn't see your hand up.
Sorry, Alderman Irvin.
No problem.
What is the – this is for the Corporation Council.
What do you anticipate taking this case to trial with – what type of jury verdicts have you seen on this?
This matter doesn't have a trial date.
It's recently being re-litigated after being stayed for some time.
So, we're settling this case pretty early in its iteration.
I would expect it would be probably two to three years.
I don't know if I'm going to try out.
What if you –
Alderman Irvin, you're breaking up a little bit.
Can you start from the beginning with the second question?
If this goes to trial, this is the verdicts that we've seen in cases similar to this over time.
I would say this is perhaps lower than some of those verdicts, but it's certainly in the same realm and comparable to similar allegations of use of force.
You're saying that the settlement amount that we're doing today is similar to settlement of jury verdicts that we've seen in the past?
It's lower.
Lower.
Well, what's the number?
The settlement is $225,000.
I don't – maybe I missed your question.
I apologize.
I know what the settlement is.
My question is, what have similar cases yielded in the past?
I think verdicts for uses of force here that aren't involving shootings could range anywhere from, I would say, $100,000 to $500,000.
Okay.
And why $225,000 then?
I'm happy to have a conversation with you.
Some of that is seeking my legal advice and legal assessment.
So I'm not comfortable sharing that here in the public forum, but I'm happy to have a conversation with you afterwards to share that and additional information.
Thank you, Alderman Arvin.
Alderman Talia Farrell will be counted towards quorum.
Alderman LaSpada, do you renew your motion to approve?
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
No, Alderman Moore.
The opposed I have as Alderman Riley, Lopez, Quinn, O'Shea, Cardona, Wagespac.
And Irvin.
And Irvin.
And Moore.
Alderman Hall, too.
And Moore.
And Viegas.
I will do a roll call.
Madam Chair.
Who was that?
Alderman Hall.
All right.
Hold on a second, Alderman Hall.
Okay.
So Alderman Hall has requested to participate under Rule 59.
All those in, can I get a motion to allow him to participate?
So moved by Alderman Harris.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
No from Alderman Sposato.
All right.
We will, you are in the meeting and counting towards Coral and Alderman Hall.
We will take a roll call vote on item number 5A.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Sposato.
Alderman Hall.
Aye.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beal.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
No.
Alderman Curtis.
Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Mosley.
Yes.
Alderman Mosley.
Yes.
Alderman Rodriguez, Alderman Scott, Alderman Sitio Lopez, Alderman Burnett, Alderman Irvin, Alderman Talia Farrell, Alderman Cardona, Alderman Wagesback, Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez, Alderman Cazada, Alderman Villegas, Alderman Mitz,
Alderman Spisato, Alderman Vasquez, Alderman Riley, Alderman Knudsen, Alderman Martin, Alderman Silverstein, Ex-Officio Nugent, Chair Dowell votes yes.
All right.
The item 5A passes with 18 yays and 13 nays and will report it out as a due pass recommendation at the next City Council meeting.
Thank you, Ms. Benson.
Item number 5B, Michael Jordan, an administrator of the estate of Michael A. Jordan, deceased, versus City of Chicago, a municipal corporation, Officer Christopher Moore individually and as an agent of the City of Chicago.
Case number 2024-L-0-11910 in the amount of $6 million.
This case will be reported out by Deputy Corporation Counsel Margaret Mendenhall Casey.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning.
Good morning, Committee on Finance.
On June 30th of 2019, fleeing offender Leon Heron, who was then 30 years old, struck a bus shelter at 99th and Van, I'm going to spell this, V-L-I-S-S-I.
Thank you, Van Villessingen.
Alderman Mitchell, can you please say that road's name?
Since we all, we don't even know where it is.
It's on the southeast side in South Deering.
It's Van Villessingen.
Thank you.
I appreciate the assist.
Where Michael A. Jordan, who was then 67 years old, was sitting.
As a result of the accident, Mr. Jordan was unfortunately killed.
The plaintiff claims that the police department's willful and warranted pursuit caused the accident, and the Department of Law recommends settlement in the amount of $6 million on this matter.
William Randall reported his Jeep stolen.
He located that Jeep using an app and notified police.
Near 101st and Crandon, Randall saw the stolen Jeep and signaled to Officer Moore.
Officer Moore, in a marked car with his dash cam activated, turned on his emergency lights.
The Jeep then stopped on 102nd Street, and Officer Moore shouted at the offender to turn off the car.
After 20 seconds, Offender Heron took off.
Officer Moore reported to dispatch that offender Heron pulled off, but did not advise that he was engaged in a pursuit.
The plaintiff will argue the general order in effect at the time required Officer Moore to notify OEMC that he was engaged in a pursuit.
The Jeep violated stop signs at 101st and 100th.
The plaintiff will argue the general order in effect at the time prohibited pursuits of stolen cars after the fleeing offender violated a stop sign.
The Jeep lost control and crashed into Mr. Jordan, who was at the bus stop at 99th Street.
Mr. Jordan came to arrest 20 feet away from the bus stop, and that impact did partially crush his skull.
Offender Heron was traveling about 68 miles per hour at the time of impact.
Officer Moore was 380 feet away.
At the time of his accident, his vehicle did not have GPS.
About half a mile and 28 seconds passed between the fleeing offender leaving the traffic stop and the accident.
Officer Moore's emergency lights were activated, but his sirens were not.
The plaintiff will argue the general order in effect at the time required Officer Moore to activate his sirens.
Officer Moore acknowledged the Jeep was equipped with GPS and could have been located later if the pursuit was terminated.
Offender Heron pled guilty to reckless homicide, and he was sentenced to 14 years and is still in custody.
At the time of the accident, Offender Heron had open liquor in his car and two outstanding warrants.
The first one was for failing to comply with the terms of his electronic monitoring.
The second warrant was failing to register his new address as a sex offender.
Heron's sex offender status stems from a juvenile case, and as such, we are not entitled to the information about what that underlying case is about.
On scene, Officer Moore's supervisor, Sergeant Haltech, was captured on body worn, categorizing this matter as a pursuit.
However, the sergeant and the watch commander concluded that the duration of the incident was too short to be considered a pursuit and found that Officer Moore was in compliance with policy.
Both did testify that if this was a pursuit for a stolen car, they would have ordered the pursuit to be terminated immediately, or the officer was under the obligation to self-terminate.
COPA did investigate this matter and declined to bring charges.
Through the course of discovery, information came out that the plaintiffs would use to critique Officer Moore's credibility.
Specifically, in 2012, Officer Moore served a one-year suspension based on a violation of CPD Rule Order 14, which prohibits false police reports.
The police board found that Officer Moore signed a consent to search form stating that a suspect's mother voluntarily consented to a search of her apartment when the evidence showed that her consent had been coerced.
If admitted at trial, plaintiff would use this finding to call into question Officer Moore's credibility and inflamed the jury.
As to damages, Mr. Jordan has four heirs.
They range from 42 at the time of the incident to his granddaughter, who was 11 at the time of the incident.
At the time of his death, Mr. Jordan was living with his son, Michael, and Michael's family.
Michael lived near the accident scene and eventually moved from the area because of the emotional impact it had on him.
And if this matter were to proceed to trial, the jury would hear that information.
The plaintiff initially demanded $11 million on this matter.
Thank you, Ms. Mendenhall Casey.
Any questions on this case from members of the committee?
Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
And did the plaintiff also seek damages directly from the offender, the person who actually killed this person?
The plaintiff did not seek compensation from the offender.
The Department of Law did file a counterclaim against the fleeing offender in this matter.
We also have done an asset check on him, and that asset check has revealed that he is, in fact, judgment-proof.
Judgment-proof.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Riley.
Any other?
Alderman Wagesback.
Thank you.
Could you explain his judgment-proof position?
Sure.
I'm more than happy to.
So currently, offender Heron is in custody.
He was sentenced to 14 years.
And by judgment-proof, I mean he has no assets.
The Department of Law conducted an asset check on him.
And unsurprisingly, given the fact that he's been locked up for years, he has no assets.
And he's not tied to anybody who does have assets that we could go after?
Sure.
When you say tied to anyone, so he's an adult, and I can't envision a legal scenario where the city would be able to recoup assets from somebody else based on his actions with evidence that we have in the record because he is an adult.
Well, I guess I was referring to if he had an ownership in a home with somebody or?
I see what you're saying.
My apologies.
I didn't understand the question.
So our asset check does look for those things.
Does he own a car?
Does he have any investments?
Is his name on a deed for any mortgage?
And our asset check revealed no to all of those things.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
Waggis back.
Any other questions from members of the committee?
Seeing no questions.
Other questions?
Can I get a recommendation to approve item number 5B?
So move by Alderman Mitchell.
Recommending do pass.
All of the-
All of the-
All of the-
All of the-
All of the-
Those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Aye.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it,
and the do pass a recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you, Ms. Mendenhall Casey.
Item number 5C is a case for Gabriel Solache versus Reynaldo Gravera et al.,
case number 18CV2312, in the amount of $6 million.
And this case will be presented to us by Jessica Felker from the Deputy Corporation Counsel.
Ms. Felker, good morning.
Good morning, Chair.
Thank you.
So I'm also going to, even though it's a separate item, talk about 5D,
which is the Solache, or I'm sorry, the Dilan Reyes settlement for 7.75,
but they do need to be voted on separately.
They will be voted on separately.
Good morning, everyone.
Gabriel Solache and Arturo Dilan Reyes each brought civil rights suits against Reynaldo Gravera
and other retired or deceased members of the Chicago Police Department,
claiming that they had been wrongfully convicted of the 1998 murders of Mariano and Jacinta Soto
and the kidnapping of their two small children.
They each served approximately 20 years in custody before their release.
The law department recommends settlement in the amount of $6 million for Mr. Solache
and $7.75 million for Mr. Dilan Reyes.
The events in this case start on April 1, 1998,
when a patrol officer conducted a well-being check at the Soto home at 2071 North Leavitt
and found the couple stabbed to death.
The couple's two children, Santiago, who was three at the time,
and Maria, who was two months old at the time, were missing.
On April 3, 1998, Solache, then 23 years old,
and Dilan Reyes, then 25 years old, who were both Spanish-speaking,
appeared at the 8th District Police Station with Rosario Mejia
and the kidnapped three-year-old child, Santiago Soto.
Rosora's sister-in-law saw that Santiago was reported missing on the news.
Both Solache and Dilan Reyes had rented rooms with Rosario Mejia,
and Rosario told the detectives that his wife, Adriana, gave birth to a girl
and had agreed to watch Santiago for a woman she met at the hospital.
Solache and Dilan Reyes said they knew nothing
and only escorted Rosario and the baby to the station,
or and the boy, to the station at Rosario's request.
In the meantime, Area 5 detectives interviewed Adriana,
who was Spanish-speaking, at her home.
Adriana showed them, quote,
her baby, who was actually the kidnapped two-month-old Maria.
She initially told officers that the baby was hers
and she was watching the boy for a woman she had met at the hospital.
Adriana was brought to Area 5,
where Rinaldo Guevara, who also spoke Spanish, interviewed her.
She then claimed that she paid a woman for the baby and the toddler.
Guevara interviewed her again,
and Adriana confessed that she had been faking a pregnancy
and said that she and Dilan Reyes,
or she told, she had said that Dilan Reyes
had gotten her the baby for $600.
Then she was again interviewed by other detectives,
and she admitted that she was there
when Dilan Reyes stabbed the victims.
Adriana denied that Solache was involved.
Dilan Reyes and Solache were interviewed.
Guevara interviewed Dilan Reyes,
and in the first interview, Dilan Reyes denied involvement.
Later, when confronted with Adriana's statements,
Dilan Reyes admitted his involvement and implicated Solache.
Dilan Reyes had been at the station for over 30 hours.
When Guevara confronted Adriana with Dilan Reyes' statements,
she then implicated Solache too.
Guevara then interviewed Solache again,
who had earlier denied his involvement.
Solache admitted his involvement after 42 hours at the station.
Adriana, Dilan Reyes, and Solache provided handwritten statements
to the felony review assistant state's attorneys.
Detective Guevara translated Solache's statement.
Another defendant, Daniel Trevino, translated Dilan Reyes' statement.
The ASA who recorded Adriana Mejia's statement spoke Spanish
and did not need translation assistance.
Rosaro Mejia provided a handwritten statement denying involvement,
and he was released.
Solache and Dilan Reyes moved to suppress their confessions
as having been physically and psychologically coerced by Guevara.
The trial court denied the motions to suppress Solache and Dilan Reyes
were tried together before separate juries,
and the central evidence against them was their written confessions.
There is no physical evidence linking Solache and Dilan Reyes to the crime.
Blood on Adriana's shoes and trousers did match one of the victims.
Both Solache and Dilan Reyes testified that they were innocent
and that their statements were coerced by Guevara's abuse.
Rosaro Mejia also testified that Guevara repeatedly hit him
while another officer held him down.
Guevara denied any abuse.
Solache and Dilan Reyes challenged their convictions,
alleging misconduct on the part of Guevara.
In December 2006, the appellate court ordered further proceedings
and reasoned that if even a fraction of the allegations
had been presented prior to trial,
it appears likely that Guevara's credibility would have been damaged
and defendants' confessions would have been suppressed.
At the subsequent hearing,
Guevara was granted immunity by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office
to testify.
Guevara testified that he did not recall much of what happened
and he did not look at reports or testimony
to refresh his recollection.
On December 13, 2017, the court found that Guevara lied
and, quote, has eliminated any possibility of him being considered
a credible witness in any proceeding, end quote.
As a result, the court grants Solache and Dilan Reyes' motion
to suppress the statements based on physical abuse by Guevara.
Eight days later,
the Cook County State's Attorney's Office dismissed the charges.
Although for many years,
the State's Attorney's Office opposed both men's Certificate of Innocence,
after settling with Dilan Reyes for $1.5 million,
the county withdrew its opposition to their Certificates of Innocence
and Solache and Dilan Reyes were granted COIs
under the Fox administration on November 14, 2022.
The city defendants moved to conduct discovery
into why the state's attorney's office decided not to oppose
the Certificates of Innocence after settling the civil suit with Dilan Reyes.
The Fox administration opposed any discovery
and the judge overseeing these suits prohibited the city defendants
from conducting that discovery.
Adriana Mejia was deposed and does maintain
that Solache and Dilan Reyes helped her commit the crime,
but also says that Guevara hit her and pulled her hair.
She also testified that she saw Guevara slap Solache.
If this case does not settle, it will go immediately to trial,
and Guevara will assert his Fifth Amendment privilege
and decline to testify.
The recommendations in these cases
is based on the risk to the city if this is taken to trial.
If these cases went to trial,
plaintiff would likely seek $20 to $40 million per plaintiff.
The city would be responsible for plaintiff's attorney's fee,
and if they were to succeed at trial,
which could be those fees for plaintiffs,
could be approximately a total of $6 million.
The judge could also authorize prejudgment interest,
and that interest could be in the millions
depending on the verdict size.
This case has been pending for five years,
and that could result in a large prejudgment interest award.
As $6 million for Solache and $7.75 million for Dilan Reyes,
these settlements are approximately $300,000 per year of incarceration
and $393,000 per year of incarceration.
As fiduciaries for the city,
the Department of Law recommends settlement
and believes it's prudent in these cases.
Questions from members of the committee.
Alderman Nugent.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a quick question on the portion that you mentioned
about the city looking to do discovery
and the state's attorney's response.
Can you talk through that one bit for us?
Sure thing.
So at the time that the state's attorney dropped
the opposition to the Certificate of Innocence,
it was under the Fox administration.
We moved for discovery to determine why it had done that,
and the judge in the case denied that request,
and we were not allowed to do discovery
to find out what the reasons were for that change.
Have you had an experience like that before?
Yes, we've had that in a lot of cases.
Under the new administration,
state's attorney's office under Burke
has not opposed in many cases this discovery,
and so we have been allowed to get it in now
that that's happened.
But in these previous cases,
the Fox administration was...
I was adamant that we couldn't discover any information.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Nugent. Alderman Beal has requested by Rule 59
to participate virtually. Can I get
a recommendation or approval?
So moved by, who moved that? Alderman Irvin.
All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?
Alderman Sposato and Wagaspat.
The ayes have it. And Alderman Beal, are you there?
I am, Madam Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Alderman Sichel Lopez, you had your hand up? Yeah.
Thank you, Chairwoman. I appreciate that.
My question, I mean, it seems like these
Reynaldo Guevara cases, you know, they're going to cost the city
just alone almost $40 million. My understanding
is there was a report that was commissioned
I think over 10 years ago
or so.
Can we, I know there wasn't a release, but
can there any, what is
the callback from that release? And also, because
these cases keep coming.
Are there, how many more cases we have
coming up? I mean, this alone has been
almost $160 million on
one disgraced detective. So,
my question is, about this
report, you know, what are the concerns about
releasing such a report? And also, how many
more cases just for this individual are coming up?
Thank you, Alderman. So the
first question is, yes, there
was a report done in approximately 2015
on
all the cases that the city was
aware of at the time. And
that report was attorney-client
privileged. It cannot be really
released publicly.
As to the second question,
there are currently 43
cases pending. These
two would take it down to 41.
We also have another two that
we have settled in principle, but have
to present before this body.
That would take us down to 39.
So, yes, there are a lot still pending.
Thank you.
I think, like I said, I mean, we're
$40 million with 41 more cases
to go. You know, my, I mean,
this is a huge burden for the city of
Chicago. I like
to see how we can collaborate.
I mean, this is one case alone, and
there has to be
a way to have
accountability. I know there's like very,
very little thing that we can do because these cases
already have passed. I know there's
attorney-client privilege, and also
this individual is now retired.
But there has to be accountability in terms
of the level. I mean, this is
costly. This is wrong
in so many levels. And
I think I would like to see, you know, maybe
a, I mean, a compounding cost
so the people of Chicago can understand
what police misconduct
does to our city. I think
this is important for the people to see early
on how much police misconduct
cost to the city of Chicago. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Thank you, Alderman.
Alderman Hopkins followed
by Alderman Mitts.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
I did understand the
allegations of police misconduct
in this particular case, but prior
to the certificate of innocence
being issued, could you please
summarize the evidence
that police
misconduct did in fact occur,
that there was abuse during the interrogation
or, you know,
some other improper method
was employed? What is the evidence
to support the allegations?
Thank you, Alderman, for your question.
Yes, there was evidence.
The evidence is obviously
the two plaintiffs.
And then it's Adriana Mejia
also says that she was abused
and saw Salache be hit.
And then also,
Rosaro Mejia also says
that he was abused.
So those are the direct evidence
that would be admitted
at trial about abuse.
And was that evidence
provided early on?
Was that part of the first trial
or did that come out later?
In the criminal trial
and the criminal proceedings,
both Salache and Julian Reyes
immediately
had an immediate outcry
where they moved to suppress
because of that abuse.
That was denied by the trial court.
And as I said in my
brief summary,
later on they challenged
their convictions
and the appellate court found
that there was evidence
of abuse in this and other cases
and moved for further proceedings
at which the court decided,
at which the trial court then decided
that there was enough evidence
to suppress the statements
and that is eventually
how they were released.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
No further questions.
All right. Thank you,
Alderman Hopkins.
Alderman Mitts followed
by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
What's the status
of Mr. Gavaris now?
Where is he at?
The employment?
What district?
Where is he working?
He is no longer a police officer.
He is retired
and living in Texas.
Oh, they always do.
That reminds me
of John Burr case
without stopping
on that case.
Are you looking to do
something similar
to what we did
earlier on this case
if we got to continue
to go down this line
of settlements
where we could do
those in a bone?
You mean like a mass settlement?
Is that what you're talking about?
Thank you.
That's a good question.
We are always looking for ways
to resolve cases
in the most economic
and efficient manner.
The Watts cases
were a lot simpler
in fact patterns.
These are a lot different
with witnesses to the crimes,
different involvement
by different officers.
So they're a lot more difficult
to do in a mass settlement,
but that doesn't mean
the city is opposed
to something like that
if it works out.
I think it's worth looking into
given the fact that
we're already damaged here.
So why keep going down
this individual road?
It seems if we could save
taxpayer dollars,
we would look at how we could
bundle this and
do it in a mass settlement.
Understood, Alderman Raymond.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Mitz.
Alderman Lopez.
Good morning, members of the committee.
Good morning, Chairman.
Before I get to my questions
on this case,
I have a question for the committee.
And it relates to the fact that
under the Kim Fox administration,
we've seen nearly 250
certificates of innocence issued,
of which I think many are
suspect to be put kindly.
Especially post her retirement,
many have come out in opposition
to many of these certificates
of innocence.
There was a legislation introduced,
I think in order,
if I'm not mistaken by myself,
to halt all potential settlements
that are based using Kim Fox's
certificates of innocence.
Until we can resolve whether or not
there's some validity to the claims
that people are in fact guilty
that we are making settlements with.
What is the status of that piece
of legislation and why are we moving
forward with these settlements that are
tied to those questionable
certificates of innocence?
I'm not familiar with your legislation.
I will follow up with you after this
meeting because I think it was introduced
when many of these post office comments
of hers and her deposition came to light,
as well as that of her subordinates.
For example, the fact that Eric Sussman
is quoted as saying, and I quote,
with regards to these two certificates
of innocence in particular,
for Solache and De Leon Reyes,
quote, there is no doubt in my mind
or the mind of anyone who has worked
on this case that Mr. Solache and Mr. Reyes
are guilty of these crimes.
They say that they are innocent.
But yet, when you look at the fact
that Adriana is still in jail,
well, that was in 2017, excuse me,
when they initially get granted that
certificate of innocence.
Subsequently, we've had many others
where the state's attorney has been deposed
and said that she herself did not believe
that these people were innocent.
Adriana Mejia, the third peg in this stool,
remains behind bars, correct?
That is correct.
The Sotos, the victims,
39 times Mariano was stabbed, correct?
I'm not sure if that was the exact number,
but yes, approximately.
Justine Tessoto, 20 times,
an autistic three-year-old
and a two-month-old kidnapped
by all of these individuals
who live together
and are now conspiring
to claim their innocence.
Somehow none of them were involved, none of them knew, and that the actual abuse that we're referring to is five slaps to the head because that's the abuse.
You have someone who killed viciously, you have a group of individuals who killed viciously, and yet here we are to pay nearly $14 million to these people?
I understand that Guevara has left us a very horrible legacy, but I think that we have to really slow down the pace when it comes to many of these certificates of innocence from the Fox administration because her depositions upon leaving office, which, if I'm not mistaken, we cannot use as our defense, are not helping us.
The fact that she did not want discovery, the fact that she did not want us to look into what was going on compared to her successor, I think speaks volumes.
And yes, these are horrible situations.
Yes, we have to make people whole when we are at fault, but at the same time, I don't believe the story that's being presented to us.
I don't think reasonable people would say that this is exactly the truth, but we are rushing simply to get through this, these cases, and I think that is very dangerous and continues to be very costly to the taxpayers of the city of Chicago.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
I don't believe we're rushing through this.
First of all, let me say on your legislation, I had to look that up.
Your legislation was sent to rules on May 20th, 2026, so that's where it sits.
Jessica, if you could respond to his question.
Yes, so just a couple of clarifications, and I appreciate what you're saying, and I understand completely.
It's a hard analysis that we make, and it's one, as fiduciaries of the city, of what to recommend as far as what these settlements represent.
Yes, Kim Fox has now been deposed once in one case.
We fought for years to get her deposition, and it was a different case in which she was deposed, and yes, she did say she believed these men were guilty.
She also said that she could not do anything because of the findings of Guevara's inability and incredibility by the courts in this case.
As a reminder, the court found here that Guevara lied and had eliminated any possibility of him being considered a credible witness in any proceeding.
We also have to deal with the fact that Mr. Guevara is going to plead the fifth.
Now, that does not mean that we don't challenge these cases.
In February, we took to trial a Guevara case because we believed we could fight that case.
We ended up, when there was asked for a $40 million verdict from the city, the plaintiff ended up with $750,000.
So we do take a careful look at these cases, and we do go forward and adjudicate those cases in trials where we feel that we can get a favorable verdict.
The reason that we look at all of these cases is because there are victims here.
There are victims in every Guevara case, and that is something that we take extremely seriously.
Here, whether or not what Kim Foxx said later, she ended up having her office not oppose the COIs.
We are faced with that fact and whether they would come in at trial, and the judge could let those in at trial, as many have.
Ultimately, the question is, did Guevara commit the misconduct that he is accused of?
The question in these cases is not whether the plaintiffs are innocent.
They don't have to prove that to get damages.
What they have to prove is that the misconduct they allege is more likely than not true.
So with Mr. Guevara taking the fifth, it makes these cases difficult to defend.
But again, it doesn't mean we wouldn't go forward with trial if we believed we could get a more favorable verdict.
Thank you, Ms. Felker.
Alderman Curtis, we'll count you towards quorum.
Alderman Vasquez, questions, and followed by Alderman Villegas.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.
And I appreciate the clarification on the ordinance that was in the Rules Committee.
I think I was here that day.
You probably sent it to rules.
Not a probably.
So, yeah, well.
And also, I really appreciate the explanation of law for people understanding what's actually being put on trial and what's challenged.
So thank you very much for that.
I have one through the chair question.
My colleague, Alderman Saito Lopez, mentioned a 2015 kind of commission report explaining, like, all the settlement cases.
Is that something we could get through the chair?
I'm not sure.
We'll have to discuss it.
It wasn't one big report.
It was many reports on the selected cases.
But I'm not sure.
I'll have to discuss that with Corporation Counsel.
I'll follow up with her as well and send out a note to the members of the committee on her response.
Yeah, because even if it's something that, if possible, I know there's obviously a lot of legal that we have to deal with.
If it's possible where we don't get through the chair, even a briefing to kind of get an understanding of them would be helpful because of the scope that we're talking about.
So the next question I have is related to how we're paying this all out.
Do we know what funds are we paid out of and what budget line item?
Is this something that we may potentially be borrowing?
It's just something that's been a mounting concern.
I'm glad that in this budget the $266 million is included in the deficit as opposed to borrowing.
But I just want to get clarity on that.
Can you?
I don't know, like as far as these two particular, I couldn't tell you that.
That would be a question for OBM.
I know in the past we have the budget and finance have used lines of credit, but they also use the, as you know, there's an $82 million police misconduct budget.
So that is also used.
We can get that answer for you before the next city council.
And if we could do that for all of the settlements that we had today, if possible, because I just want to know if we're paying for them or borrowing.
That's just, it's a, it's a line for me.
So I'd like to know.
Thank you, Chairman.
Any other questions?
Oh, Alderman Villegas.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
Just to confirm, Councillor, our insurance is at $20 million per case?
Yes, $20 million per case.
So actually per claimant.
So here we would have to, our insurance wouldn't kick in unless we had $20 million for Salache and then $20 million for DeLeon Reyes.
It wouldn't be just $20 million for both.
I got you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alderman Silverstein, who I mentioned earlier, had applied to participate remotely during Rule 59.
I got you.
Can I get a motion to allow Alderman Silverstein 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 Silverstein, you are counted towards quorum.
Alderman Wagaspak, you have a question on this case.
Yes, Madam Chairman.
What happened to the Soto children, and did they get any justice at all in this?
Adriana Mejia is still behind bars and incarcerated for this crime.
They are private citizens and adults now.
Did they testify at any point over the last few years as to what happened, or could they remember anything?
I know they were very young, but did they come back, and in terms of Soto and Reyes, or Solache and Reyes, did they come back and speak about what happened?
They don't have any memory about the perpetrators.
Obviously, the two-month-old, one was two months old, and the other was three, so they didn't have any memory that would help prove Solache and DeLeon Reyes were perpetrators.
Okay.
So they're essentially, the only justice they're getting is that Mejia is still behind bars?
Correct.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Alderman Taylor, were you going to – you had no questions?
All right.
Yes, Alderman Talia Farrell.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
It was reported in one of the news media sources that a previous administration did an investigation or report regarding Officer Guevara that was never released, a report to the tune, I believe, 1.7 million.
Is there any truth to that media report?
And if so, does the law department have access to that report and the findings of that report regarding Officer Guevara's conduct and actions?
And if so, has that report ever been shared with the city council?
I believe –
This is the there is multiple reports of the same study.
This is the same reports that Alderman Cicho Lopez and Alderman Vasquez were just referring to.
OK. And what's the status of that report? Because I didn't hear. I apologize.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. So those reports are attorney client privilege.
They can't be released. So they have never been shown to city council.
I believe Alderman Vasquez has asked that we inquire into court with corporation council if they can be discussed or at least have a briefing on them.
And who is the client in this particular case with regard to attorney client privilege?
The city of Chicago. And do we represent the city of Chicago?
Yes, you do. So why wouldn't we fall under that privilege?
I think this is something we should talk about offline.
We'll follow up with the corporation council on this, Alderman.
I will follow up. But we represent the city of Chicago.
So therefore, I believe that we are privy to that report.
But we will talk offline.
It's not it's not that it's not that you don't represent the city of Chicago.
It's that if this is highly sensitive information that while we excuse me, that we have to discuss with corporation council on the best way to talk to city council about this.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Talia Farrell.
Seeing no more questions.
Yes, Alderman, do we have any Guevara cases next month?
I don't know about next month right now.
Right now, we're still dealing with September meetings.
Nothing's been introduced for the October meeting.
We do have a finance committee meeting coming up.
There are no cases for Guevara on that committee agenda.
Okay. Thank you.
Okay.
Seeing that we will take a vote separately on 5C and 5D, is there a motion to recommend approval of item number 5C?
So moved by Alderman LaSpada recommending do pass.
All those in favor of the recommendation of the motion signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
Those opposed, can you please raise your hand just so I can see it?
Alderman Lopez, in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass recommendation will report it out at the next city council meeting.
Item number 5D, is there a motion to recommend approval of that item?
So moved by Alderman Harris recommending do pass.
All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion, Alderman Lopez, we will record your no vote.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass recommendation will report it out at the next meeting.
Thank you, Jessica Felker.
Thank you, Chair.
Item number 6, from the mayor's office, is a communication introduced by Mayor Brandon Johnson appointing Marshall Hatch, Jr., as a member of the Chicago Development Fund Advisory for a term effective immediately and expiring on July 20th, 2029.
And item number 8, is also a communication introduced by the mayor appointing Ryan Gadia as a member of the Chicago Development Fund Advisory Board.
For a term effective immediately and expiring on July 20th, 2029.
We're joined this morning by all three appointees.
But before we get started, I wanted to ask Jeff Stern.
I'm sorry, Jeff.
I don't know.
I wanted to call you Stern today.
Maybe it's because you are Stern.
Jeffrey Cohen from the Department of Planning and Development to just give the committee an understanding of the Chicago Development Fund Advisory Board and what it does.
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning, Chair Dowell, members of the Committee on Finance.
For the record, again, my name is Jeffrey Cohen, Managing Deputy Commissioner with the Bureau of Economic Development, as well as Vice President of the Chicago Development Fund.
I'm also joined by Ethan Lassiter, Director of Business and Neighborhood Development in the mayor's office.
We are seeking this body's favorable approval for the next three agenda items pertaining to the appointments of Reverend Marshall Hatch, Jr., Mr. Ryan Gadia, and Ms. Janae DeFell to the advisory board of the Chicago Development Fund.
Chicago Development Fund is the city of Chicago's federal new markets tax credit financing vehicle, also known as NMTCs.
CDF is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation created by City Council Ordinance in July 2005 and is a certified U.S. Treasury community development entity.
Through this entity, we provide federal tax credit authority, converting equity into below-market capital for projects in Chicago's most economically distressed census tracts.
The CDF's mission is to promote development in Chicago's low-income communities through new market tax credit allocations, providing capital to qualifying projects and businesses in low-income areas.
CDF concentrates on three primary areas.
This is industrial and business expansion, where we help launch new ventures or help establish companies, expand and modernize within the city of Chicago, with an emphasis on creating and retaining high-quality jobs.
A focus on grocery-anchored retail, alleviating food desert conditions, and not-for-profit-sponsored community facilities in healthcare, education, workforce, youth engagement, and cultural, serving low-income persons.
CDF invests exclusively in CDFI fund-qualified census tracts on Chicago's south and west sides.
100% of its new market tax credit investments are in areas of great economic distress, as defined by the CDFI fund.
This is a higher standard than the statutory low-income community threshold.
On average, tracts receiving CDF investment have medium family incomes at the 45% of the Chicago-area median income.
CDF has been awarded $571 million in new market tax credit allocation authority across 10 awards since 2006, making it one of the most successful municipal-affiliated CDEs in the history of the new market tax credit program.
Through 2025, CDF deployed $533.5 million into 55 projects with an aggregate of $1.17 billion in project costs, primarily concentrated, again, on the south and west sides.
CDF operates under a two-board structure, a board of directors composed of city officials, which holds all corporate decision-making authority, and a nine-member advisory board, consisting of a diverse array of community and civic leaders.
The advisory board, appointments to which are under consideration today, exists to satisfy the federal requirement that CDEs maintain accountability to the low-income communities it serves, with every transaction being considered, needing advisory board input and approval before a project is considered for investment by the board of directors.
The importance of having a board with a geographic, cultural, life, and work experience diversity is essential to fulfilling the mission of the advisory board.
The three appointees for your consideration have been selected not only for their work within disinvested communities, but also for the diversity mentioned.
Each individual will bring their own unique perspective to the advisory board, which will enhance the decision-making of the governing board and assisting with the projects CDF chooses to provide its limited resources for the betterment of all Chicagoans.
We are happy to answer any questions the committee may have about the CDF, and each individual can provide any additional background in the order of today's agenda.
Thank you.
I don't know what happened.
Just keep going.
Are you through, Mr. Cohen?
Yes, sorry.
We're happy to answer any questions the committee may have about CDF, and each individual can provide any additional background in the order of today's agenda.
All right, thank you.
Alderman Scott has asked to participate through Rule 59.
She was here.
She is on line.
Can I have a motion?
So moved by Alderman Mitts to allow Alderman Scott to participate.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed.
Got you, Nick.
Alderman Scott, you were in the meeting and counted towards our quorum still.
Thank you.
I would ask each of the appointees if they would take a minute or so to introduce themselves to the members of the committee,
and then we'll open it up for questions, starting with Mr. Gadia.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning.
Good morning, members of the committee.
Thank you for considering my appointment to the Chicago Development Fund Advisory Board.
I want to start with the obvious.
I do not currently live in the city of Chicago.
Chicago is where I first made my home in this country.
I am a Filipino immigrant, and when I first came to the U.S. in 2006, I lived in Uptown for six years.
For the past ten years, I have...
worked with Esperanza Health Centers. It is a federally qualified health center on Chicago's
southwest side. I am surrounded by people who care deeply about the communities we serve
and their commitments shape how I think about service and responsibility.
I'm not a doctor. I am not an expert in community development. I am someone who loves math and loves
spreadsheets. And I know numbers tell stories and how numbers on spreadsheets ultimately affect
people's lives. At Esperanza, we worked with Chicago Development Fund to use new market tax credits to
expand health care access to Chicago's southwest side at the Brighton Park neighborhood. And seeing
those projects come to life showed me how financial tools help expand access and create opportunities
in underserved communities. I also know what it means to be passionate about serving others.
That's why I'm here. I would be honored to volunteer my time, my experience, and my perspective to
support the CDF's mission of helping investment reach under-invested communities in Chicago.
If appointed, I will serve with humility, curiosity, and deep respect for the people and communities
affected by these decisions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thaddea. Our next speaker is Mr. Phil.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak
this morning. My name is Janae DeFell, President and CEO of Community Desh Chicago. I was born and raised in
Auburn-Gression and currently reside in South Chicago. I'm excited about the opportunity to serve on the
CDF Advisory Board to help support the advancement of economic opportunities in neighborhoods. This is my
passion, as evident in the work that I do every day. I launched Community Desh Chicago in March of 2023
after incubating the organization of the Chicago Community Trust. This decision was based on the
missed opportunities I saw in neighborhoods and my technical skills to make a difference.
My organization serves as a community help desk to reduce vacancies and blight along neighborhood
business corridors and to be a connector of technical and capital resources to support development
goals in communities. Our organization has supported more than 60 capital projects, helped to create two
community plans, and secured $33 million to advance community-centered development projects. Our organization is
currently partnering with the City of Chicago through our Wealth Our Way program to provide capital grants to
communities interested in collectively acquiring community assets that will provide wealth-building
opportunities and improve the quality of life for residents. I have a business degree from the University of
Michigan and a master's in urban planning and policy at UIC with over 20 years of experience in
management consulting and urban planning with direct experience, development experience in both Chicago and Detroit.
I also have direct experience with structuring and closing on new market tax credit transactions.
Again, I'm excited about this opportunity to serve on the board, and thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. And our last appointee is Marshall Hatch, Jr.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee members on finance.
First, I'd like to acknowledge the shoulders of giants that I stand on, my parents, Marshall Sr. and Priscilla,
who are actually celebrating 33 years of pastoral ministry and service at New Mountain Pilgrim Missionary Baptist Church
and West Garfield Park. They instilled in me the values of faith, education, and servant leadership.
These values were the bedrock of the home that they created for me and my siblings.
In fact, before we had a computer in our household, we had the World Book Encyclopedia, all 22 volumes,
which showed me that at an early age from the west side of Chicago, I had access to the world.
These values were strengthened by many mentors and educators like Paul Adams of Providence St.
Male School, who encouraged me to always pay it forward.
After returning to Chicago after college, I set out to do just that.
In 2017, I founded the My Off Redemption Project, designed to help young black and brown men see themselves differently.
In nearly 10 years, we poured into over 200 young men through housing support, workforce training, mental health support,
financial empowerment, and character and spiritual development.
There have been many highs and lows in this work, but this ministry, this meeting of young men where they are
and witnessing them build families, careers, and futures for their children has been the joy of my life.
Every morning, the young men recite the My Off a motto and mission statement.
They say, we are the men of the My Off Redemption Project.
We recognize that we cannot redeem our families and our communities until we first redeem ourselves.
Therefore, our mission is to invest in the mind, body, and spirit so that we may repair and rebuild our city one life at a time.
The beauty is that these words have become flesh.
Through a commitment to service and vision of grassroots community development, we have inspired and co-led the development of the Sankofa Wellness Village
in West Garfield Park, which is a string of capital projects that are designed to usher in reconstruction and renaissance.
In 2022, our coalition of community and health-based partners received the Chicago Prize.
With these resources, including new market tax credits from the CDF, we were able to build the Sankofa Village Wellness Center.
The nearly 50,000 square foot building is the largest capital project in that neighborhood since the 1968 riots
in the wake of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination.
All this to say, I've witnessed firsthand the impact that new market tax credits can have hyper-locally.
I've seen the hope that it can engender at the grassroots level, and I'm excited at the prospect of serving as an advisory board member of CDF
so that other communities can witness the same.
I realize that the work of CDF and the tool of new market tax credits are not a panacea.
In fact, West Garfield Park had the largest increase in property taxes in the city last year,
and this has caused anxiety among legacy residents who fear that they will witness displacement in the coming years.
Nevertheless, as a CDF advisory board member, I will bring the voices, concerns, and hopes of community members to bear as decisions are made.
And my ultimate hope is that we work together to use all the tools at our disposal to continue building communities that the coming generations deserve.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hatch, Jr.
Opening up for questions from members of the committee, starting with Alderman Mitchell.
Could you or Jeff give us a little background of the appointments right now?
Are they currently vacant?
Give us the status so we kind of have an idea of what's going on.
Jeff Cohen, Managing Deputy Commissioner at DPD.
Currently, we have a nine-member advisory board, and we have three members who have indicated that they are either looking to vacate, have vacated,
or will be taking other courses of action, such as retirement.
So as part of making sure we have a full advisory board in order to comply with federal regulations and be able to receive additional allocations,
we need to make sure that we have a full nine-member board.
Yeah.
Can you also state who are the three that decided to do one of the options that you shared?
Yes, I'll get that through the chair.
I can't remember them off the top of my head.
I apologize.
Okay.
That's all I have.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Alderman Mitchell.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I don't really have questions for the gentlemen, but I do want to thank you all for reaching out to me.
I think each individual call may have talked to two of you.
One I miss, but this is an important board that you're looking to advise on for the city.
Reverend Hatch, Jr., you know, the work that we've done has just been incredible.
But I know where you get it from, because you're following in the footsteps of your father.
Whereas you've been over in the Garfield area, on this board, you'll have to come to all of our areas.
You know, I can get a little of that experience over there on the 37th Ward from your expertise.
And I'm looking forward to working along with all of you on our future projects that are coming.
And glad that you have that knowledge of what have not been to create what can be in communities that's been disinvested in.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Mitz.
Alderman Lopez, followed by Alderman Talley Farrell.
Thank you, Chairman.
And again, good morning, members of the committee.
Yes, I, too, join my colleague from the west side in St. Louis.
Thank you for reaching out.
But I do have some questions, in particular for Reverend Hatch and Mr.
Gadiya.
Both of you have projects that were listed as part of the April 2026 meeting agenda as being active projects and or recently approved projects.
Is that correct?
The last project approved with Esperanza was in March 23 was when we closed.
But it is still part it's still listed as part of the active projects under the portfolio on page.
Seven, the phase two of Esperanza's and then on page eight, the Sankofa Village Wellness Center.
Both of these are part of the April report, of which both of you are connected with these organizations, affiliated with the New Market Tax Credits and this advisory board currently, correct?
Yes, that is correct.
The March 23 transaction I was referring to is the Brighton Park phase two.
We closed on that deal March 23.
Mr. Feldman, are you do you have any current projects before the board or this commission or?
No.
OK.
I guess my question really is if you're trying to have individuals who are advising and making decisions, should we have people who are having business with this body on these boards as opposed to individuals who are without conflict?
So that would be my reservations, chairman, because I have reservations, even if on an advisory level, of putting people on a board when their own organizations are benefiting from the work that's being done at this location.
Alderman Lopez, I think that's a fair point of view.
I'd like to have Mr. Cohen address that.
Jeff Cohen, managing deputy, DPD, do understand that having individuals that have gone through the New Market Tax Credit allocation process is part of the kind of overall input that they can bring and advisory to some of the groups that we're considering for these projects.
What I can say is that these projects are in their final phases or if completed, but in the kind of seven year New Market Tax Credit compliance period.
So they're not necessarily getting any kind of benefit from New Market Tax Credit today, but they are in that compliance period.
And we think that having people who have gone through this whole process and have had different kind of experiences with it are important to help with the other advisory board members and selection of projects.
And is that something and is that mindset of having people who've gone through the process shared by the entire administration?
Is that shared by the mayor's office?
I can have them comment on that.
Yes, Ethan Lasseter, director with the mayor's office.
I will reiterate what Jeff Cohen from DPD said.
Yes, I think we share the same viewpoint.
Could you please identify yourself for the record?
Ethan Lasseter, director with the mayor's office.
We share the same view that having experience is critically important to the CDF advisory board.
So I...
Did you get his name?
Did you get his position?
And I'm sorry, Mr. Lasseter, you're within the mayor's office to handle what exactly?
I am a director on the business neighborhood development team.
We handle coordination on community development and with the departments of housing, planning, business affairs, and D-CASE.
So are you the D-CASE commissioner's replacement?
No, I have no...
And I mean that as she transitioned out of the mayor's office to go take care of D-CASE.
Are you...
Can you merit its replacement?
No, my role hasn't changed.
I've continued to work with DPD.
So...
Thank you.
I think many of us, we're not familiar with you.
That's why we're trying to figure that out.
The reason I ask this question, Chairman, and it is very relevant to how we do business here in this building,
is that oftentimes we are creating policy where we don't encourage those who've lived through it,
walked through it, and done anything with it to be a part of the conversation.
We have that conversation now when it comes to housing and other matters.
So I'm just trying to get a sense of what exactly is our MO here because it seems that we only encourage and welcome people
who have the experiences of working with whatever the subject matter is when it suits this administration.
And I find that highly offensive to hear that, but I know that's a topic for another conversation.
But I'm going to still flag my concerns with having individuals who are so closely tied and benefiting from the work of a body,
being part of that very same body.
Thank you, Chairman.
All right.
Thank you.
Moving on to Alderman Talia Farrell, followed by Alderman Lee.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to make a brief statement rather than asking the questions.
Well, I really thank the three appointees here for reaching out to me, and I certainly appreciate it.
But I want to really comment on Pastor Hatch or Reverend Hatch and just really thank him for the work that he's done on the west side
and the tasks that each of you are taking up here to ensure equity in the projects that benefit low-income communities.
But, Reverend Hatch, thank you for the work that you do on the west side of Chicago with youth to ensure that some of the things in our communities
that hold folks back, like education, mental health, workforce development, housing, and financial literacy,
that you are out there with tenacity and making sure that young men in our community have these resources available to them.
So, with that, I know you'll do a great job on the advisory board, and thank each and every one of you for taking up the task of serving the city of Chicago.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Talia Farrell.
Alderman Lee, followed by Alderman Hopkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good morning.
Let me apologize to all three of you who did reach out to me, and I was not able to reconnect with you.
But I've reviewed your credentials, and I think clearly you're all more than qualified to sit on an advisory board and serve in this capacity.
Let me say first and foremost that I'm very excited to see an Asian American be appointed a member of this body.
Alderman Lee, can you speak up?
Yes, I'm sorry.
I'm really pleased to see that there is an Asian American that has been put forward to serve on this really important body.
I think that the way that the city utilizes new market tax credits is not really understood by a lot of people sort of outside of the world of, you know, community development.
And I'm getting to know it a little bit more in my capacity as Alderman.
But the work that will be done on this board is, you know, very important to our ability to grow, especially in some of these communities that really use the help.
And as far as the, you know, the concerns from my colleague, Alderman Lopez, you know, I think that it's a fair sort of point to raise.
I do think that having the experience of going through it is an important thing because I think more people don't look at new market tax credits because it seems like something, based on my experience at least, that not a whole lot of people know about and understand.
So I think that's one of the things that, you know, I'll be looking to you all to do is to really do more outreach to make sure that, you know, there's as level a playing field as possible so that it's not just the few that know about it,
that know how to sort of work the system to get access to these tax credits, but really, you know, that everybody has an opportunity to be educated about it and are encouraged to apply for these funds.
We know funds are really hard to come by in general, so definitely looking forward to that and hope to continue to work with all of you, and I'm happy to support your appointments today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Lee.
Alderman Hopkins, followed by Alderman Curtis.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
No questions.
I just wanted to make a due pass motion on all three appointees at the appropriate time, and please hold it until questions are concluded.
Come back to you.
Alderman Curtis, followed by Alderman Hall.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
All three of you, first of all, thank you for reaching out.
I also had a really hectic weekend, funerals and things like that.
I want to piggyback off something that Alderman Mintz said.
Being chairman of economic capital development, I've been watching a lot of these city incentives come together and where they're going.
For, I don't know, maybe six years or so now, this administration, last administration, a lot of times, you know, they concentrate on putting this money in places where most...
needed, which I agree. But also we have to look at
the city as a whole. Some of the projects we have
Invest Southwest, Neighborhood
Opportunity Fund, a lot of that stuff don't even reach my
award. And I know
that we need this help.
Being a part of the Planning Commission now, I look forward to working with
a lot of you. I mean, all of you, actually.
Maybe we have to change some things so some of the things that we do
we can see every piece of the city
get a piece of the pie. Because
as I look at some of this stuff, a lot of times
it goes in the same places over and over again. So I look
forward to working with you in the future. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Curtis. Alderman Hall
followed by Alderman Riley. Thank you
so much, Madam Chair. To the three of you all, thank you
so much for your service. I want to ask
in the box
from DPD, quick question, similar
to what we do here, if there's
a conflict
and something that we have to vote on, we
abstain from it.
Is that same parliamentary
procedure
going in these meetings? Jeff Cohen,
Managing Deputy DPD. Yes.
If if there is an advisory board member who is
an active applicant for something that is under
consideration, they would likely have to recuse
themselves. However, we typically are
cognizant of who is on the board and at what point
in time so that we're not necessarily creating
those kind of conflicts for investments going forward.
But that's an option. Yes, absolutely.
So to
the three of you, as
just heard, just, you know, our hope is
that you use that option if it
becomes a crossroad in your decision
making. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you,
Alderman Hall. Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And
each of the applicants
here has, I think,
excellent credentials for the job.
One thing that did stand out, though, is
Mr. Gideon, when you were
testifying, you mentioned that you'd lived
in Uptown for six years.
Did I hear you correctly?
Do you currently reside in the city of Chicago?
No, Alderman. I live in Downers Grove.
Sorry, you live where?
Downers Grove. I know I do not live in the city today.
I see. Downers Grove.
But you own a
you own a business. You own a business in the city.
Is that correct? I am the CFO
of Esperanza Health Centers at the
Health Center. OK.
But you don't currently live in the city
of Chicago? No, sir. OK.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Alderman
Hopkins made a motion
to take these three individually.
I mean, together.
However, I'm
going to do this individually
for every
appointee,
which is how they're identified
on the agenda.
Alderman Conway.
I just had a point of order based on
what Alderman Riley asked.
If because his residence is in Downers Grove,
is that is there any eligibility concern there?
I will defer
that question to
the mayor's office.
Mr. Lasseter.
No.
Sorry.
Ethan Lasseter, director with the mayor's office.
No.
Eligibility
is identified by either
residency or professional practice
based in the city of Chicago.
Jeff Cohen can provide any additional details.
So he would apply based on
professional practice then
as opposed to residency?
Is that the thought?
OK.
Yeah.
Alderman Harris followed by
Alderman Waggisback.
I don't understand.
I'm so sorry.
I don't understand.
With all the people that live in the city
of Chicago,
we can't find qualified people
that reside in the city of Chicago.
So you will exercise your vote.
I absolutely will.
All right.
Alderman Waggisback.
And Alderman Conway's,
actually Alderman Riley's,
original question.
Where is it in writing
that that is the rule
for residency?
Because
I have never heard
of a
an appointee
that lived outside of the city
since
we're just changing it now.
Oh, OK.
Since I've been alderman.
So could you point out
in the code
or
rules and regulations
where that is?
I'm Jeff Cohen,
managing deputy, DPD.
I don't have
the specific
specific section
of the CDF bylaws
where that particular
eligibility requirement is.
I can get that
through the chair.
However,
I do know for certain
that the eligibility requirement
is based on tenure
of business practices
within the city of Chicago
and or being a resident.
There is no exclusivity
of necessarily needing
to be a resident of the city.
However,
I do hear the concerns
that are being raised here today.
Mr. Cohen,
of the nine members
that exist
on the board now,
are there any
who live outside
of the city of Chicago?
I would have to get
that information
through the chair.
I don't know
that off the top of my head,
but I would imagine
the majority,
if not all,
others are residents
of the city.
All right.
Thank you.
Alderman O'Shea.
Madam Chairman,
could I ask
for maybe
a 10-minute recess
and we could discuss this?
I think
we need to get
some more clarity here.
What kind of clarity
are you seeking,
Alderman O'Shea?
On whether or not
someone can serve
in this position
outside the city.
It would appear to me
just watching
the theatrics
around here
to my left
that some people
maybe aren't so sure.
And before we have
yet another
embarrassing situation,
if we could spend
10 minutes
some of us
talking here.
before we take
a recess
on that,
Attorney Radatu,
are you able
to opine
on this
immediately?
Or perhaps
we could
settle
the other
two and then
I got you.
No, Chair,
I need to look
at the law
before I opine.
All right.
So we're going
to hold off
on
Mr. Gadia,
which is
item number
seven.
We will take
a vote
on item
number eight,
which is
Janet DeFell.
May I have
a motion
to recommend
approval
of item
number eight?
Move,
do pass.
Move by
Alderman Hopkins
recommending
approval,
do pass.
All those
in favor
of the motion
signify by
saying aye.
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.
Mr. Felt,
congratulations.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We will now
move to
item number
six,
which is
a communication
introduced
by the mayor
appointing
Marshall Hatch,
Jr.
as a member
of the
Chicago Development
Fund Advisory
Board.
Is there a motion
to recommend
approval of
item number
six?
So moved
by Alderman
Hall.
Alderman
Lopez.
Sorry,
I guess
it only
stands
to
logic
to ask
does
the
Reverend
live in
Chicago?
He lives
on the
mighty
west side.
I'm just
not making
assumptions,
just making
sure.
Okay.
That's going
to be my
new favorite
question.
Alderman
Irvin,
before we
take a vote,
Alderman
Irvin,
you wanted
to...
Yeah,
I did.
I apologize.
I had to
step out
and take
a call,
but I
did want
to speak
on behalf
of
Young
Hatch.
I've
watched
this young
man
just
grow.
He's
led
some
significant
projects
on the
west
side
of
Chicago
and
consistently
been an
advocate
for
West
Garfield
Park,
which I've
always
maintained
as we
talk about
Mattis,
we talk
about West
Garfield.
Young
Hatch
has been
at the
forefront
of leading
on issues
in the
community.
So again,
I think
this is
an excellent
choice.
His work
and his
name
precedes
him.
He's
done
great
work
and I
think
he'll
do
an
excellent
job
being
another
member
of the
west
side
on the
CDF.
So
appreciate
your
willingness
to
participate
and I
know
you'll
do a
great
job.
Thank
you,
Alderman
Irvin.
Alderman
Lee,
is this
related
to the
item
we're
voting
on
that
you?
So
Alderman
Hall,
you're
renewing
your
motion
recommending
do
pass.
All
those
in
favor
of
item
number
six
signify
by
saying
aye.
Aye.
Opposed
Alderman
Lopez.
In the
opinion
of the
chair,
the
ayes
have
it
and
the
do
pass
recommendation
will
report
it
out
at
the
next
city
council
meeting.
Alderman
Lee,
before
I
go
to
Attorney
Redato.
Thank
you,
Madam
Chair.
I'd
like
to
make
motion
to
hold
item
number
seven.
All
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye.
All
those
opposed?
In
the
opinion
of the
chair,
the
ayes
have it
and
item
number
seven
will
be
held
in
committee. Thank you very much for your participation, and you'll be hearing from us.
Thank you. Thank you.
Moving on to item number nine from the Department of Fleet and Facility Management,
an ordinance authorizing the execution of a second amendment to the master intergovernmental
agreement with the Public Building Commission to authorize the use of tax increment financing
funds for various projects in the 3rd, 7th, 12th, 34th, and 42nd wards.
We have with us today the Executive Director of the Public Building Commission,
Public Building Commission Executive Director Ray Gitteroff. We also have with us Glenn Cross,
who is the Managing Deputy Commissioner for the Department of Fleet and Facility Management.
And we have with us Marek Wisniewski, Department of Fleet and Facility Management.
Director Gitteroff, will you give your presentation? Good morning. It's still morning. Good morning.
Good morning.
Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you. And to the committee, thank you for having us.
My name is Ray Gitteroff. I am the Executive Director of the Public Building Commission.
And beside me on my left and right are my partners from 2FM. I wanted to thank Glenn for the opportunity,
for the ongoing partnership that we've been able to enhance over the years. And Mark, to you as well,
thank you for that partnership. So today, we are going to present an ordinance as an amendment to a
previous ordinance that allows the Public Building Commission to continue doing work on behalf of 2FM.
The original IGA was in the amount of $250 million. This amendment does not change that $250 million
amount. Rather, what the IGA does is report on the accounting for certain projects and reallocation of
funds to other new projects. Yeah. Which page? All right. Thank you. Sorry about that. So as I was
saying, this amendment does authorize us to continue working on behalf of 2FM. And the projects are
diverse in nature in that there are some new projects that we're going to talk about. And there
are projects that are renovation projects in which that have been already completed and ongoing in some
of your wards that we've been working with you on. All of the projects are city-owned facilities
managed by 2FM. The clients that occupy the buildings may differ in terms of who the clientele is that's
going to be occupying the facility. But 2FM is the maintainer and operator of those facilities.
And then the last slide is a list of those projects that we're going to talk about today. Some of them you
may be aware of. A lot of them are in your wards. Some of them have been completed. And we can talk
through those as well, Madam Chair, if there are questions. I just don't want to hold everybody up in
that regard.
I would ask that you go through each project individually quickly, and then we'll open it up
for questions.
Of course. The first project is the Central Hearing Facility located at 400 West Superior Street.
The estimated value for that project was $11,061,558. The total TIF funds matched that amount
at $11,061,558. That project was completed in 2025, and that was part of Amendment No. 1 to the IGA.
This is simply the reporting function of that. The second project is the Chicago Public Safety
Headquarters located at 3510 South Michigan Avenue in the estimated and final amount of $4 million.
That project was also completed, and we are currently in closeout. That project was also included as part
of Amendment No. 1. The next project, Pershing Road. Building upgrades, three different locations.
The first is the East Building you may be familiar with, 1769 West Pershing Road in the amount of $577,958.
As you may be aware, that building is slated for sale, so our work in that building stopped at that point.
Once it was identified as a potential sale, we didn't want to inefficiently spend taxpayer dollars on that building.
The next building is the Pershing Road Center Building at 1819 West Pershing Road in the amount of $22,945,000.
With our partners at 2FM, we managed to identify a significant amount of renovation work within that building,
along with all of the elevator modernization work that also occurred.
It just so happens that the Board of Elections and 2FM's offices are also in that building.
That work on the elevators is scheduled for completion first quarter of next year.
I'm sorry. Yeah, first quarter of next year.
And then the last project at Pershing Road is the West Building located at 1869 West Pershing Road in the amount of $12,400,000.
That project is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2027.
The next project is the Hall Library project at 4801 South Michigan Avenue in the amount of $3,500,000.
That is a phased completion plan for 2027.
The next project is the new project, the 78 Development, in the budgeted amount of $5 million.
And that work entails a public building commission providing support in the way of construction management,
owner representation, coordination, and any aspects of that work to ensure the efficiency and proper delivery of that entire site.
The next project is the municipal bus station in the amount of $25 million.
The public building commission has undertaken a partial undertaking of $200,000 by way of bond dollars.
The remaining funds are TIF dollars based on providing those needed renovations for the facility,
as recently discussed at one of our community meetings.
The next project is the new salt dome at 101st Street.
That's at 10101 South Stony Island in the budgeted amount of $20 million with a TIF request of $10 million.
The last project is one of my favorite projects, the new DFSS Regional Senior Center at 4711 South Calumet Avenue in the amount of,
in a total budgeted amount of $31 million with a TIF request of $13 million.
That project is ongoing.
The design builder is burling with future as their architect of record.
And with my partners to my left and right, that project is moving forward, slated for completion in Q4 of 2027.
Thank you, Greg.
That report.
Get her off.
Any questions from members of the committee?
Vice Chair Conway.
Madam Chairwoman, just confirming, are all these projects,
they've all been gone through this committee for TIF allocation?
Is that right?
Yes.
And how is the determination made for the dollar amount?
Just picking the two that have TIFs related to the 34th Ward, like the 78th development,
I see it's only $5 million, and it's $109 million, I believe, out of TIF funds this year.
While the municipal bus station, it's $25 million total for this year and next,
and $20 million just to buy the facility.
So I assume we don't need the Public Building Commission for the purchase.
So I just didn't know how the project costs of the total project costs were allocated to the Public Building Commission.
Sure, and thank you for that question.
Related to the 78th, that $5 million is a budgeted value only so that the committee is aware of the funds that are being requested,
not that they've been spent or encumbered, just budgeted in order to allow the Public Building Commission to step in on behalf of 2FM
and all of our other city partners to provide that support, coordination, whether it be estimating,
scheduling, utility coordination, and just general oversight to ensure the proper delivery of that entire campus.
Okay, so that one just gets started.
How about the bus station?
So related to the Greyhound bus station, the budgeted amount is based on anticipated renovations that are going to be required at that facility,
and that is a multi-agency coordination effort.
2FM on its own is undertaking some emergency repairs related to the roofing and the mechanical system, which are absolutely needed.
And the remaining of that value...
No idea, they're absolutely needed.
Maybe it's some idea.
They're absolutely, absolutely needed.
I didn't mean to cut you off, but is the $25 million, does that include the $20 million used to purchase the facility or not?
And if you don't know that, I'm happy to take it through the chair.
Yeah, it's a separate value, and it's just an estimated value related on what may be needed for the renovation.
So the $25 million is purely for potential renovation and not for the purchase of the facility?
That's correct.
Okay.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Appreciate it.
All set, man.
Thank you.
Alderman Riley, followed by...
Alderman O'Shea. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I was just speaking with Alderman O'Shea about this,
and it seems like we both have the same recollection. It's related to the first
item on the chart, the central hearing facility. And this question may be for 2FM and less so the
Public Building Commission. As Alderman O'Shea and I recall, several administrations have slated
this property for potential asset sale. Given the zip code that it's in, the fact that it's in the
River North neighborhood, surrounded by successful residential properties that are of a high value,
I believe at one point the city might have pegged the potential value for an asset sale here around
$4 or $5 million. That had been part of a longer-term plan. At what point, and again, I know you're not
looking for a TIF approval here today, but for the public certification, at what point did this
administration pivot from seeking to sell the administrative hearings building to a private
developer for cash rather than instead keeping it on our rolls and investing $11 plus million
into a building that potentially, when sold, will likely be torn down for new development.
So is the plan here to keep this building for the long haul? It's no longer considered a saleable
asset? Or is this an interim investment to extend the life of the building until we decide to sell it?
What's the plan here?
Thank you for the question, Alderman. Yeah, currently the plan is to mark with Newsy,
Deputy Commissioner with AEC 2FM. The current plan is to maintain the building and retain the building
as part of our portfolio. Very often, as you know, once we're out of an area, we're out,
and then we have to lease. So right now there's a lot of critical department functions in that
building, and the two buildings, 400 and 740, are actually connected and function as one campus.
So in order to actually separate the two would be a very large undertaking. Obviously,
understanding where the hearings would go would be problematic. We've evaluated some of those options,
and currently the plan is to retain the building, the buildings.
Okay. Well, I guess it's concerning because at one point we were hoping this was going to be a
four or five million dollar upside to the city, and now instead we're spending 11,
we've spent 11 million dollars plus on it to modernize and keep it.
So does that mean then it's the administration's position that this parcel is no longer considered
to be on the auction block, so to speak?
I can answer that, Alderman. Glenn Cross, Acting Commissioner for Fleet Facility Management.
Because of the construction that we have to do now, it's been decided to put this funds into the
building for the construction to be completed because the building was technically falling in
pieces. It's not to say that the intent is not to sell the building in the near future or in the
future, but now we just want to maintain it to make sure that the mechanicals are working,
there's no roofing leaks and what have you, but it's not to say that we don't ever intend to sell
the building. Okay, and the reason I ask that, I appreciate the answer, the reason I ask that
question is we're making significant investments in this structure now knowing that any potential
end user of this site when they buy it is going to demolish the buildings. We're putting 11 million
bucks in new building systems in. I doubt that we're going to get credit for that when we're
selling this property down the road because the new user isn't going to want to maintain any of that.
They're going to want to tear this thing down and put up a high rise. And so I'm just trying to
understand the math here. What we were looking to be $5 million in salvation for the city budget is
now an $11 million or so expenditure. And hearing that we may still consider selling this parcel in
the potentially near future, that's a concern for me. Yes, the irony here is, Chairman, that this
building houses administrative hearings where every year during budget season, we learn we're hemorrhaging
millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars because administrative hearing officers
are letting folks off the hook and consolidating penalties and fines. So how symbolic is it that
we're now pouring $11 million more into this building that we may not even keep? And that's, I think,
a reasonable concern to raise here. Great. Concern acknowledged. Thank you, Chairman. I do think that
we need to do more on collecting what is owed us through administrative hearings. That is indeed true.
And it's been true. And it's been true for a while. So I don't know what it's going to take to
get that ball rolling, but it needs to get moving. Alderman O'Shea. Thank you, Chairman. I just wanted to
piggyback on my colleague, Alderman Riley. Some of us might remember just a few years ago,
the Office of Inspector General moved out of that building.
Because of some of the problems. And we were told, which was the third administration in a row, that
we are going to sell this property. And I actually think the price tag would have been significantly
more than four or five million. But the primary resident of that property is a department that
continues to underperform. When we talk about administrative hearings generating revenue,
I can speak solely for myself. When we have a bad operator in my ward, you don't want the case
going to administrative hearings, because more often than not, nothing's going to happen like a bad
business. We need to try to get it into the circuit court. So now we're talking about $11 million going into
the property, which is the first I'm hearing of it. And in just a few short weeks, we're going to be in this
room talking about an underperforming department that continues to hemorrhage money. And we're going to be
talking about how we need to start selling our assets. We have hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of
properties, folks. And this one would generate the top 3% of revenue. Why aren't we looking at unloading this
for what most certainly would be a significant investment in Alderman Riley's community?
Was anybody else aware of $11 million going into this property? And yes, sir, it is. It's falling apart. Some
developer is going to buy it, demolish it, and build a big structure that's going to have people living
there and businesses generating sales tax revenue for our city and property tax revenue. That's all.
Mr. Cross?
I would just like to emphasize, as you mentioned, Alderman, the wear and tear of the building
fall to pieces and what have you. We felt that it was an emergency to keep the building at least
in place so that the different departments can work out of it because of the condition it's in. So
we really consider it to be an emergency to put these dollars in there. And that way we can keep the
operations for administrative hearings and Department of Finance to operate within the facility.
Thank you.
Thank you. Alderman Beal, followed by Alderman Mosley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, everyone. I just got one quick question on your PowerPoint.
On your PowerPoint, you have the Lake Calumet TIF, $22 million, item number nine for the Salt
Dome. Do you have a letter of support from Alderman Beal, Alderman Chico, and Alderman Harris for that
$22 million out of the Lake Calumet TIF?
Thank you for the question, Alderman Mark Wisniewski, 2FM. It's a $10 million request from the TIF
for a total project cost.
Okay. Do you have support letters from all the other members?
We're currently working with DPD to figure out a better way to make sure you guys are included
and informed of all these 2FM projects.
But you're coming at us with a presentation to take $10 million out of the Lake Calumet TIF
without first knowing that you're going to get the money.
The money will be used to restore a damaged dome, salt dome, through storms, which is currently
severely impacting DSS operations. So we did think that it was an important storm.
Wasn't that dome just resurfaced?
There was an immediate repair past the first. After the first storm, it got damaged. We fixed it.
There was a subsequent storm that damaged it even further. At this point, the structural engineering
team has informed us that the dome is beyond.
and repair based on the deterioration from the water damage to the main structural members,
and therefore we're seeking to replace the dome in order to continue those operations for DSS.
Okay. Who made the decision to take $10 million out of that TIF?
It was 2FM's decision to do so because it's made that way.
You all appropriate money, huh?
I'm sorry, what's that?
You all appropriate money now, huh?
Well, we requested the money.
We didn't just take it after the fact.
Well, it's still in process.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Alderman Mosley.
Thank you, Chair.
I wanted to say first thanks to Glenn Cross for stepping in and supporting this role
and then turn my attention to PBC.
Alderman Mosley, I don't know what's going on with your mic.
Can anyone else hear him?
No, we can't hear you.
Can you speak better?
That's better.
Okay.
Thanks so much, Chair.
I was saying thank you first to Glenn Cross for stepping in the role here and turn my attention to PBC.
This is not related to this topic, but the work that you do around WPAs.
Would love if you could expound on what's happening there and happy to take it offline for the convenience and time's sake.
We're going to take that offline for time's sake.
And if you could follow up with Ray Gitteroff on your question after the meeting.
Thank you, Chair.
You're welcome.
I'd like to ask for a motion to allow Alderman Rodriguez to participate in the meeting by virtue of Rule 59.
All those in – can I get a motion?
So moved by Vice Chair Conway.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Alderman Sposato, thank you.
We have your no.
Alderman Rodriguez, you are in the meeting.
Any other questions related to this item on the agenda?
Vice Chair Conway.
As a point of information, a follow-up from a prior question, a follow-up on Alderman Beal's questions, all of these allocations are coming from TIF allocations that this committee has already approved, right?
I mean, for example, I'll take the municipal bus station.
I appreciate that the city council allocated $50 million for that project.
I assume this $25 million is part of that $50 million.
Similarly with the $5 million for the $78 million is part of the $424 million.
I mean, I assume that's the case with all the other projects, that they have been approved in prior TIF asks, and these aren't new TIF asks going through this.
Gray, I'm going to turn that question to you.
Thank you, Alderman.
So these requests are reporting on previous projects that you may have not been aware of, but more importantly, they do advise on these newer projects,
and they are within the $250 million IGA that currently exists between 2FM and PBC.
So the amounts that you see here, whether they're a reporting function, accounting function, or new projects,
they are still all within that initial $250 million that was previously approved.
Some of these projects have gone through the finance committee, for example, the regional senior center, your bus station, but some have not.
For example, the Hall Library, because it is a public facility, was basically a discussion between 2FM, PBC,
and my office about the need to do that library, and TIF funds are being authorized from that TIF to fix that library.
There may be other examples like that here.
I don't know every single project.
Okay.
Well, I'm appreciative of all the ones that touch the TIFs I'm involved with.
We have gotten letters of support and things, but if I was not one of those, I might be a little upset about that.
All right.
Is there a motion to recommend approval of item number 9?
So moved by Alderman Quinn, 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 of this ordinance will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
Thank you, all.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Item number 10 is an ordinance introduced by Alderman Quinn and others amending the Municipal Code Chapter 2-8
by adding a new Section 2-8-036 requiring issuance of bonds and other indebtedness ordinance requirements.
We have a number of Aldermen that want to address this item, and I'll start with Vice Chair Conway.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I want to apologize for my – there we go.
I'm used to it.
I lose votes all the time in this chair.
Excuse me, Vice Chair Conway, give me a minute.
Alderman Mitchell, can you take that to the back?
Alderman Mitchell, can you take that conversation to the back?
Thank you.
Vice Chair Conway.
Thank you.
I'm here to address Alderman Quinn's ordinance here that would require 60% of this body to be required to approve new debt ordinances.
And I first want to apologize for my tardiness and my appearance here today.
I've just come back from the Ukraine.
I'm on little sleep and little showering.
Apparently, I've cleared out the whole back row here.
And does that explain –
Chris is still hanging out, but –
And does that explain the new facial hair?
It does.
It does indeed.
And it will be going away shortly.
But I first want to, since we haven't really had a meeting since Alderman Quinn announced his retirement,
I want to start by thanking him for bringing forward this ordinance,
but more importantly, thanking him for his years of service to the city of Chicago and the 13th Ward.
And as he prepares to leave this council, I think this ordinance is an important part of his legacy
in that we need to be careful about how we legislate and careful about the debt that we leave behind.
And debt is really a silent killer of our city budget.
This year, we're going to spend about $2 billion, a little more than that, on debt service,
which, by the way, is about as much as we spend on the entire Chicago Police Department.
And it's not just a problem of how much we owe.
There's also significant concern about how a lot of this debt has been structured.
I've been critical about some of what we've done this term, but a lot of that really predates most of us
or all of us in this chamber in the sense that so much of the borrowing has been backloaded,
pushing principal payments out for years and, in some cases, decades into the future.
And that may make our budgets now or in the past easier to balance,
but it makes tomorrow's budgets and the budgets down the road even harder to balance.
And every additional dollar we dedicate to interest service is another dollar that we can't put into our parks,
our potholes, our police department, our mental health clinics, or other basic services.
Now, a lot of that borrowing is, of course, sometimes necessary.
But when we borrow, we are making a promise that future taxpayers and future city councils are going to be required to keep.
And given our current debt burden, our pension obligations, the many fiscal challenges we have ahead of us,
I think it's entirely reasonable that taking on of new debt should really require a higher level of consensus from this council.
And a 60% threshold says something simple.
If we're going to obligate future generations of Chicagoans,
there ought to be broader agreement in this council that that debt is necessary.
So I'm proud to support Alderman Quinn's ordinance.
I want to thank him again for putting it forward, as well as his leadership and his service to the city.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Thank you, Vice Chair Conway.
Alderman Knudsen, followed by Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to also state my proud support of Alderman Quinn's ordinance.
I believe that these municipal bonds are an important tool for Chicago.
Something we don't disagree on is it's a great way to invest in our streets, bridges, infrastructure and neighborhoods.
And this ordinance is not about stopping those investments.
It's about making sure that when we borrow, we're cutting the best possible deal for Chicago taxpayers.
Last February, many of us included.
including myself, opposed the $830 million bond authorization, specifically because of its
repayment structure that backloaded payments, costing the city an outsized amount of interest.
During this time, I worked on what I thought was a reasonable compromise, requiring the city to
begin making minimal principal payments from year one, rather than pushing these costs decades into
the future. That minor change alone could have saved Chicago taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars in interest down the line, protecting important city services for future generations.
I worked in good faith with the administration on this proposal initially, and then it was pulled
by the then CFO. We saw what the structure costs. That $830 million loan will balloon to roughly $2
billion in total payback, and it passed by a tiny margin. I think that if Alderman Quinn's
ordinance had been in place last February, that bond would have been in a better place to be
negotiated. It would have been passed because it was for an important use, but it would have been
passed with more thoughtful and prudent structure. That's why I support the two-thirds threshold,
which isn't unique or rare when you look at other cities. It gives us the opportunity to ask hard
questions and negotiate terms, and hopefully puts us in a better place to cut better deals for
Chicagoans. So I thank Alderman Quinn for bringing this forward, and I support the ordinance.
Thank you. Mr. Blakemore, if you want to take your phone call outside, I'd appreciate it.
Alderman Lopez. Thank you, Alderman Knutson. Alderman Lopez.
Thank you, Chairman, and I thank Alderman Knutson and Alderman Jack Reacher over there for coming back.
Alderman Lopez, please continue. Alderman Irvin, could you please move a little bit to the left?
To the left, to the right. Either way, I'm going to continue.
No, he doesn't have to sit down, Ms. Jackson.
Well, thankfully, Chairman, anyone can watch me on TV right now. So I will continue. I,
too, joined my colleagues in supporting Alderman Quinn's measure to address how we deal with debt.
Currently, right now, the city of Chicago has nearly $40 billion, would it be, billion dollars
in outstanding debt? But what continues to add to that amount is the fact that we have an unchecked
way of getting new lines of credit here in this room. I'm going to start yelling pretty soon if she's
going to match me. Every budget, not only do we leapfrog year to year with regards to infrastructure
spending, TIF spending, and other debt-related spending, but we oftentimes are, as we just saw,
taking out lines of credit to pay for settlements, to cover budget deficits. And this is not something
that is unique to this administration or any other administration. As a matter of fact, even during
the daily era, as a way of avoiding tax increases... Excuse me. He is out of your way now, Ms. Jackson.
He is out of your way now. Okay. Thank you. We'll go back to our business. Alderman Lopez, please
continue. All right. Third time's a charm. As we know, we've used debt going back to the daily era,
or even a refusal to address any kind of fine fee or property tax increase often was relied heavily
on by debt, general obligation in particular. And I believe that now we have the opportunity to do
something that so many of us have to do at home and something all of our residents have to do,
which is to start living within our means. What we have seen as of late though, chairman,
and this is something that I and many of us here in this in this committee and in this body have brought
up, is the fact that oftentimes it's not just the fact that we need to address the simple majority
necessary to offer bond issuances, inducements, and opportunities for adding to our collective debt.
But it's the fact also that we have lines of available debt floating out there that most
of us have no connection to, but are going to be required to pay once they are activated.
As we saw in the recent budget, in 2025, there was huge amounts of collected lines of credit debt that
was issued based on bonds going back nearly two decades. One of our colleagues actually just spoke
with regards to leaving that debt burden to future generations. But what about blindsiding individuals
with debt opportunities that no one in this room even knew existed, that none of us had a vote on,
and yet all of a sudden are now required to pay? We should treat debt for what it is.
It is a generational pain that we have to sometimes take, but we should do it thoughtfully, deliberately,
and with a greater consent of this room other than just a simple majority.
This ordinance allows us to do exactly that, because it will also force this body
and this mayor and future mayors with having to confront both our fiscal house as well as the
revenue we generate and how we bring those two together. We won't be able to hide behind debt
any longer. And ladies and gentlemen, that is a good thing. Because I remember in 2015,
and some of my colleagues here who joined us that year, the very first thing we had to do was address
some of the debt and pension obligations that we had that none of us were a part of. With a $550
million property tax increase, walking in the door five months later, that is not something that we
should be proud of turning over to everyone that will be in these seats in the next 20 years,
30 years. So I urge all of my colleagues to not only sponsor, co-sponsor this ordinance, but vote in
favor of it, so that we can actually bring some common sense to what we do when it comes to how we
manage our money, knowing that we are living as close to the moment as possible without simply spending
like drunken sailors knowing full well that most of us won't be around when the bill comes due.
And also, to our colleague's point, let's also start looking at how we spend this money when we
reach that two-thirds. Some of my colleagues here have questioned how you make those payments,
whether it's front-loaded or back-loaded. I've tried to raise the issue of whether or not the wording
matches the 21st century, which oftentimes it does not, because often our debt is three points higher
than the national average. We are intentionally paying more people more money to loan us money
because we simply refuse to look at the wording and review the terms and make it more market ready.
If we are committed to paying our bills, if we are committed to showing some fiscal discipline,
we won't need to incentivize buyers of our debt with extra points on their return.
So I will be a yes in this, Chairman, and I thank you for this.
Thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman Cardona, followed by Alderman Quinn,
followed by Alderman Burnett. Alderman Cardona.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I would like to thank my colleague Alderman Quinn for introducing this ordinance
that requires good government and stronger legislative oversight. We need these changes now because this
administration has gone from three CFOs and have faced a downgrade in our credit rating. As we enter the next
budget season and we prepare for the next administration, whoever the next mayor will be,
we must put Chicago taxpayers first. We have a responsibility to address this.
their concerns, and protect the long-term financial health of our city.
This is about accountability, transparency, and making sure that the future generations
of Chicago taxpayers are not left to deal with this financial decisions that we have made today.
And this is why I'm a yes, supporting this ordinance.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Cardona.
Thank you, Alderman Irvin, followed by Alderman Burnett.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know we had this ordinance up a little while before.
I know that the Alderman Quinn retooled a little bit what it is.
Unfortunately, I don't believe in making permanent decisions for temporary situations.
This threshold essentially would allow a minority group in the body to hold everybody hostage.
Same thing we said when it was at 34.
Same thing at 30.
This is democracy, and this isn't the U.S. Senate.
This isn't some other archaic body where the rule doesn't mean anything.
I mean, 26 votes is enough to pass any and every item that we do, and to allow a minority
of members to effectively hold everybody hostage.
I don't think it's in the best interest, not only of the city, but how democracy works.
As it was said before, this is unprecedented.
This is, we'd be the only major metropolitan city to enter into such a decision.
Again, today is one thing, but five, six, seven, eight years from now, when a small group of people decide to say,
hey, we don't want to borrow for project in a specific part of town, a specific community, or specific areas, or at all,
which clearly could be in the best interest of the city as a whole, to allow the minority to control that,
I don't think is the best way for us to go.
So, again, understand folks may have challenges with the current administration,
but to make a permanent decision on a temporary situation is not the best form of government for us to participate.
And the second question I'll ask is, why now?
Some of us have been in this body, some predate me, some afterwards.
But why now?
I think those are some very interesting questions, because, again, today is one thing,
but tomorrow we don't know what the future holds.
So while we're talking about general obligation bonds, we're talking about things that move our city,
our streets, airports, other enterprise-related activity.
I just don't understand the need to do this today or at all, because, again,
it would empower a smaller group than the majority that have been elected by members of this city
to effectively control the process on capital development in this whole city.
Again, I understand people's proclivities for now,
but I don't think we make permanent decisions for situations of just right now.
These documents, these ordinances, they live and they breathe.
I know that some changes have been made.
But, again, I thought majority ruled, not the minority ruled.
So hopefully you all can think about that between now and when we pass this out of committee
and think about this before it comes to council, because, again, this would set an unusual precedent.
And I'm not saying this, but I think we need to look at the optics of how this will proceed,
especially in minority communities, as to what's being done to whom, by whom.
Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Burnett followed by Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I'm sorry.
Alderman Burnett followed by Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
As my colleague, Vice Chair Conway, likes to note, he's a finance professor.
My experience before this was in leveraged finance banking, meaning I operated in the debt world.
And to Alderman Lopez's point, it is very specific and detailed work.
Wording matters a ton, timing matters a ton, and how and who you talk to can matter over time.
And I say that all to get to a bit of Alderman Irvin's point of delaying this or utilizing it as a political tactic can be very challenging when you have layers of debt that precedes us.
So a lot of these solutions with these geo bonds would not only be going to funding the new issues, but to tackle some of these challenging developments that might have been over budget over years.
And so it's extremely important that as we consider this opportunity to make it a majority council to 30 vote, that we recognize that this requires everyone's participation at an extreme level.
You must be diligent with this because it's very serious and it requires a lot of education to get it right.
And so as we consider this, and I want to make note as we go into this budget cycle, having smaller staff and smaller staff budget does not make it easier for us to execute on these properly.
So be mindful as we take on this more responsibility to be the financial stewards of the city, which I hope that everyone wants to be thoughtful and have the accountability within the chamber.
So it's great.
We need to make sure that we're able to do this work properly.
And so I want people to think about that as we go into this next cycle and as we go into pushing this through final city council approval.
Thank you, Alderman Burnett.
I want to underscore what you just said.
That is absolutely accurate.
Alderman Vasquez.
Yeah, I'd like to add a plus one and thank our colleague Alderman Burnett for the comments.
I think I think about why I ran to come to this seat.
It's because I'm a product of the city of Chicago and that's good, bad and ugly.
I think we know what it's like when communities haven't been funded.
And when we look at the results of what the councils before us led to, I think it's why we come to this kind of decision.
I remember council votes where it was 50 to zero, 49 to one.
And it's for the same kind of borrowing that happened term after term, year after year that we then have to deal with as far as paying the bill.
We've gotten to the point in the last two terms where I believe the council has become more independent, but it's still going through an evolution as we're moving through it.
So in the first term that we were here, you started seeing more split votes around these conversations.
And I think that's a good and healthy thing.
But at the same time, as we've had to reckon with all the different borrowing before us, I'm constantly thinking about what we leave behind for our kids, which is part of the reason I ran as well.
I envision a city where we're no longer here and our kids and grandkids are the ones who inherit the bill that we leave behind.
And we constantly get to borrowing in a way that avoids two options that you have.
You raise revenue or you make cuts and find efficiencies.
And I get concerned that at every possible juncture, when someone can borrow to avoid doing the difficult things, we just push it off to our future generations in ways it doesn't help.
Now, we've gotten better as far as being independent council.
But what I'm seeing in this current term, I don't believe has anything to do with the current mayor.
I think it's the dynamics of how council becomes.
This council is becoming more and more polarized in a way that does not lead to good judgment and good results, at least to who can get to 26 as quick as possible, rather than having the conversations.
Now, when it was the dailies and it was ROM, you looked at the number of chairs you had and you counted those votes as yeses, and then you had a small number to get to to get to 26.
That had nothing to do with engaging in fiscal responsibility and everything to do with the consolidation of power.
So I'm not concerned about the current mayor.
I'm concerned about every mayor in that seat, including the one to come after us.
To have a council that takes more time to deliberate, that can walk through details, not just on the general borrowing, but if we're doing borrowing related to capital, what happens with those funds is important.
Now, I am in disagreement with some of my colleagues who are supportive of this.
When we voted on the $830 million bond, which I voted in support of because we like to maintain our roads and our bridges, we understood that some of the debt was pushed off because if it wasn't, you have to pay for debt on top of debt.
And a lot of our colleagues who wanted to talk about responsibility weren't going to vote to raise the revenue to pay that amount up front.
So I just get really challenged by our colleagues who talk about making responsible decisions, being viscally sound.
Then they want to say they want to pay for a thousand more cops, but they don't want to pay for it.
They want to find ways to borrow or not pay misconduct settlements. They want to find ways to borrow for that as well. So I think it makes sense for us to take more time to deliberate. I think getting the 30 votes means you have to engage with more colleagues rather than polarize and try to find a smaller number of people to agree on a thing.
So I do have an asterisk on moving it forward. I am supporting it out of committee, but I do have a concern about how it can get conflated with the budget process in and of itself.
I think when we get to the end of the year, sometimes the borrowing gets kind of put in the middle of the conversation of our budgets, and that complicates it in a way that can be extremely political, especially during election years.
So I think there needs to be a better solution so that we can vote on borrowing in and of itself, isolated from any other process, isolated from the budget process itself, and hope that there is a way to solve for that.
But I do think overall, we need to talk about this stuff rather than vote very quickly, tell our neighbors we did something that was responsible, and then wait for our grandkids to pay for it.
I can't support that. So I'll be in support of this in this committee. Thank you, Chairman.
Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, in light of some earlier comments from our budget chairman, one would think that what Alderman Quinn is proposing here is unheard of.
And he made, Alderman Irvin made some inaccurate statements in his presentation about other major municipalities requiring a supermajority vote to issue debt.
In fact, there are many. So this is not uncharted territory.
And Alderman Quinn, I know, is familiar with this because he also worked in the Illinois General Assembly like I did.
Our own state legislature requires a supermajority vote to issue state debt and has for a very long time.
And it's actually part of the Illinois Constitution.
So the folks that built our state constitution saw well enough that we should have a supermajority before issuing debt.
And if you look at the debt burden, both of the state and the local level, it's astronomical.
And it's not often that Alderman Vasquez and I agree on issues, but in this case, we absolutely do.
And so I would argue this is not about who the current mayor is.
This change applies to all future mayors.
And I think that Alderman Vasquez is correct that in recent years, this body has started to, it's refreshing, act independently of administrations and the executive.
And by requiring a supermajority vote, frankly, it makes the dialogue and engagement with each of us more valuable.
When you need more votes to get debt issued, to Alderman Vasquez's point, it requires very specific conversations with each of us.
Whereas in previous administrations, and in some cases with this one, once the administration got to its basic minimum requirement of 26 yes votes, that was the end of the conversation.
And so the idea that having more dialogue and having more, quote, cooks in the kitchen to push back and ask tough questions and determine whether or not the amount of debt we're issuing is prudent or in the taxpayer's best interest, we want more conversation.
We want more scrutiny.
We want more vetting.
And I would argue if this works well for the Illinois General Assembly, as it has for many, many decades in the state of Illinois, we should also be availing ourselves of this exact same tool.
And although our world isn't in California, and I say thank God, California actually has two critical steps.
The local municipality needs a supermajority vote to issue debt, but then they then have to go to the voters and get a supermajority from them to issue debt.
So we could have all sorts of really high bars set here in the city of Chicago, but I think Alderman Quinn's proposal is a reasonable one.
It only requires us as a body to supply a supermajority vote to issue debt.
We do not take every debt issuance to our voters like they do in California.
And so I think this is a reasonable change.
I think that the change is evergreen, meaning that it applies to this administration and all future administrations.
And that's good policy, regardless of today's politics or the fact that it's a political year.
We're heading into campaign season.
This is something we should have done a long time ago.
And so I would urge my colleagues to support this ordinance.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Riley.
Does anyone else wish to speak before Alderman Quinn closes?
Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Today I introduce an important ordinance regarding the city's bond rating and overall debt structure.
I propose a simple change that the city council must approve any bond or debt-related ordinances with a three-fifths vote, 30 votes, instead of a simple majority, 26.
I see various benefits to this move, most importantly, the ability of the city council members to strengthen our independence and our say in the city's overall financial health.
As you know, I'm a strong proponent of more independent city council, and I've been promoting ways to enhance our independence over the past several years.
Utilizing a three-fifths vote as opposed to a simple majority allows for more voices to be heard and counted in addressing critical issues like Chicago's financial health and future.
As Alderman Riley just pointed out, this isn't a new concept.
The Illinois General Assembly has had this for a long time.
It's smart and solid practice that I believe the city should also adopt.
I think we all agree that we need to be more conscious about the city's bond rating and our fiscal standing.
It can't hurt to have more Alders taking a closer look at the city's financial health.
I truly believe empowering the city council to have more stake in the city's well-being will create a stronger and better Chicago.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I ask for a roll call vote.
Thank you.
Alderman Quinn has asked for a roll call vote.
So I'll take the roll.
Vice Chair Conway, Alderman Laspata, Alderman Hopkins.
Aye.
Alderman Hall.
Nays.
Alderman Mitchell.
Alderman Harris.
Alderman Beal.
Alderman Lee.
Alderman.
Alderman.
Alderman Rodger.
Okay.
Right.
Alderman Ramirez.
Alderman Quinn.
Alderman Lopez.
Alderman Moore.
Alderman Curtis.
Alderman O'Shea.
Alderman Taylor.
Alderman Mosley.
Aye.
Alderman Rodriguez.
No.
Alderman Scott.
Yes.
Alderman Cicho Lopez.
Alderman Burnett.
Alderman Irvin.
Alderman Irvin votes no.
Alderman Talia Farrell.
Alderman Cardona.
Alderman Wagesback.
Alderman Rodriguez.
Sanchez.
Alderman Cazada.
Alderman Villegas.
Alderman Mitz.
Aye.
Alderman Mitz, what did you say?
Aye.
Yes.
Got you.
Alderman Sposado.
Alderman Vasquez.
Alderman Riley.
Alderman Knudsen.
Alderman Martin.
Alderman Silverstein.
Yes.
Ex-officio Nugent.
Chair Dowell votes yes.
The measure passes 21 to 9, and the do pass recommendation will be reported out at the next city council meeting.
There being no further business before the committee, can I get a motion to adjourn?
So moved by Alderman Vasquez, all those in favor signify by saying aye, aye, opposed.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the committee on finance meeting is adjourned.
Thank you.
Thank you.