Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Finance Committee is called to order. We have a short
meeting today. We'll have a roll call to establish quorum. Vice Chair Conway, Alderman Hopkins,
Alderman Hall, Alderman Mitchell, Alderman Harris, Alderman Beal, Alderman Lee, Alderman Ramirez,
Alderman Quinn, Alderman Lopez, Alderman Moore, Alderman Curtis, Alderman O'Shea, Alderman Taylor, Alderman Mosley.
Alderman Taylor, Alderman Mosley, Alderman Scott, Alderman Cicho Lopez, Alderman Burnett,
Alderman Irvin, Alderman Taliaferro, Alderman Cardona, Alderman Wagesback, Alderman Rodriguez
Sanchez, Alderman Cazada, Alderman Villegas, Alderman Moore, we see you, got you. Alderman
Villegas. Oh. Alderman Sposato. Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley. Alderman Knudsen. Alderman Martin. Alderman Silverstein.
Chair Dowell is here. We have a quorum. We have 19 in the room.
alderman rodriguez la spada and mitts 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 so moved by alderman rodriguez sanchez 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 um i want to confirm alderman rodriguez alderman lespada and alderman mitts
present thank you alderman lee alderman mosley alderman o'shea and alderman talia farrell have
joined us and will be counted towards quorum um we will begin the public comment period
the public comment period is limited to 30 minutes um in respect for everyone's out of
respect for everyone's time each speaker is limited to three minutes we have no one that
have signed up to speak remotely our first speaker
our first speaker is roxanne nava i'm actually here for the next committee hearing
well you signed up for this one okay the next one is uh okay this is also okay hold on a second
oh this cuts us down tremendously alderman chairman uh ervin these are all for you
we have one speaker present that is Gleb Steslunas thank you madam chair good afternoon
members of the finance committee Mayor Brandon Johnson told Chicago voters that quote I'm the
only candidate for mayor that won't raise your property taxes well in 2024 that changed mayor
proposed a 300 million dollar property tax increase that campaign promise deserves an
explanation. Chicagoans elected a mayor who promised not to raise their property taxes.
When that promise broke, residents deserve more than an excuse that the budget was too difficult.
Now Chicago faces another major budget challenge. Before asking homeowners to pay more,
this city needs to demonstrate that it is making concrete financial decisions.
For example, let's look at the Clark and Lake Station and the Thompson Center redevelopment.
The wider building renovation is a major private investment by Google. While the CTA separately
committed $10 million to platform improvements. Clark and Lake serves over 9,100 riders daily
and connects six rail lines. So why are Chicagoans still left trying to understand the full cost of
these projects and what's paying for each component? If figures such as $500 million
are being discussed, the public deserves a clear breakdown of what that figure actually covers.
We should not confuse the building's redevelopment costs
with the CTA station improvements,
but we demand clarity for both.
Meanwhile, Cook County property owners face
an additional $743.8 million in property taxes
for the 2025 year.
Homeowners accounted for $593.4 million of that increase,
a rise of 5.3%.
Here's the problem.
Families cannot simply create more money when their tax bills rise.
They have to make difficult choices about housing, groceries, education, and saving for the future.
City government should understand that reality before treating property taxes as an easy answer to a budget shortfall.
I'm not arguing that Chicago can operate without revenue or that every major project is wasteful.
I'm arguing that raising taxes should not become the first response to a financial problem.
Mayor Johnson made a promise to voters, and his administration should be judged against it.
And this committee should make it clear that before Chicago asks residents for another dollar,
it has exhausted reasonable alternatives and explained its spending decisions.
A balanced city budget means very little if balancing it makes life increasingly unaffordable for the people of Chicago.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Hey, Gleb.
Mr. Gleb, what high school are you in?
do you attend high school senior at the british international school of chicago
okay all right that's your award alderman conway right
all right um our next speaker is miss jessica jackson and alderman silverstein we see you
and you'll be counted towards farm um the main thing about the finance committee and just like
the Budget Committee is that this is year number four.
budget committee is that this is year number four that we're going into the year with a budget
deficit. Now, the real issue is how this is going to not only affect us right now, but it's going
to affect our children, affect our grandchildren, this bad managing of money. And so many of you
are sitting here and allowing it to happen. It's so sad to see the city of Chicago have a complete
open mind to just dog out its citizens like this. It's bad management anytime
four years straight you can't balance a budget. Now I want to commend that young
man from high school that just spoke. It's very good and refreshing to see
young people be involved with politics, for young people to be aware of what's
going on because you have so much falsity out here, mainly being led by Brandon Johnson.
Brandon Johnson is literally teaching young adults how to be lawfully people. He's teaching
them that they shouldn't have a good work ethic. They shouldn't aim to own. What they should do
day in day out is be paid protesters to lay up on landlords, to make sure
landlords go out of business, have no money, to let this city run rampant with
crime, to give them a false sense of some type of power by not having police, and
having people walk around with lime green jackets like they can really help
with anything and to see young people eat that up when it promised them
When it promised them no type of good future.
So when I see a young man like the one that just spoke,
it's encouraging to know that everybody is not listening to the garbage and rhetoric that Brandon Johnson is putting out there.
We need real financial solutions.
We need safe streets and communities.
We need to be able to own property.
We need to be able to own small businesses.
We need all this fake attack against corporations and the rich to stop, because this is what the truth is.
This is America. This is America. America is going to be a capitalist society.
And if black people ain't out here going against that, then you tell me how a bunch of immigrants can.
It was built on us.
Thank you, Ms. Jackson. I want to acknowledge Alderman Martin and Alderman Mitchell
to be being present and you will be counted towards quorum. This ends the public comment
period. We have a total of three items on the agenda this afternoon. The first one is from
the Department of Law. It's a communication transmitting reports of cases in which verdicts,
judgments, or settlements were entered into for the month of September 2026. This report was sent
electronically to everyone and if there are no objections these items will be placed on file
with the clerk item number two is from the department of housing is an ordinance authorizing
the issuance of multi-family program funds and other financial assistance to harvest homes
apartments llc and conveyance of city-owned land for the development of a residential housing
project at 3415 through 3449 west jackson boulevard and 3414 through 3456 west fifth
14 through 3456 west 5th avenue in the 28th ward we have anna booth from the department of housing
who is the financial planning and analyst to give the presentation on this project
miss booth thank you thank you chairwoman dowell and members of the committee for the record my
name is anna booth from the department of housing joining us today our members of the development
team, Veronica Gonzalez, Vice President from the NHP Foundation, Pastor Michael Eady, President
of People's Community Development Association of Chicago, and Pastor of People's Church of the
Harvest, and Kimberly Jackson, Managing Director of the Financial Consultant Firm CP2 LLC Real
estate solutions. This is Harvest Homes 2 apartments, which is to be located at 3415 to
3449 West Jackson Boulevard and 3414 to 3456 West 5th Avenue. East Garfield Park is the community
area, and this is the Midwest TIF District. It's the 28th Ward, and the alderman is Jason C. Irvin.
The application for city assistance was submitted by the developers in the City of Chicago's 2023 Qualified Allocation Plans funding round.
The requested actions today are to authorize the execution of a Tax Increment Finance Redevelopment Agreement with Harvest Homes 2 Apartments, LLC.
Authorize the execution of a Multifamily Loan Funds Program Agreement with Harvest Homes 2 Apartments, LLC.
authorize the city to transfer Illinois affordable housing tax credit proceeds
generated by the sale of these tax credits for the project known as Harvest Homes II,
authorize the negotiated land sale agreement for the disposition
negotiated land sale agreement for the disposition of three city-owned parcels to the developer
for $1 per parcel, and designate Harvest Homes 2 Apartments, LLC as developer.
So Harvest Homes 2 Apartments, LLC will be the owner. It is a single-purpose entity
formed for the benefit of this transaction. The developers are the NHP Foundation and
People's Community Development Association of Chicago. The NHP Foundation is a District of
Columbia not-for-profit corporation that was founded in 1989 and currently has 19,000 affordable
units in their portfolio. Their main headquarters are located in New York, but they also have
offices in Baltimore, Chicago, and the District of Columbia. To date, NHP has three developments
in the Chicagoland area, totaling 214 units, one of which is Harvest Homes 1, a 36-unit
affordable rental development, which is located just west of the proposed Harvest Homes 2
transaction.
People's Community Development Association of Chicago is a 501c3 non-for-profit formed
in 1999 and focuses on a three-fold mission of job training and placement, youth initiatives
for at-risk youth and affordable housing.
This will be their second housing development.
They partner with NHP on Harvest Homes One.
Additionally, People's Community Development Association
is affiliated with the People's Church of the Harvest,
and the pastor is Michael Eady.
Financial Consultant CP2, LLC Real Estate Solutions,
was formed by Kimberly Jackson,
formerly of LCDC and the Michaels Organization.
Ms. Jackson is a veteran and CP2 LLC Real Estate Solutions is a certified veterans business.
solutions is a certified veterans business enterprise the remaining members of the development
team are all individuals and or entities the city has worked with in the past or are currently
working with now architect urban works limited the general contractors burrowing builders
the attorneys are applegate and thorne thompson and the proposed lenders and syndicators will be
BMO Bank, Enterprise Housing Credit, and Clock Tower Tax Credits, LLC. So Harvest Homes 2 will
consist of new construction of a three-story walk-up elevator building. It will house 50
affordable rental units, community spaces, offices for resident services, ground floor retail space,
11 on-site parking spaces and indoor and outdoor bicycle spaces. The building will be approximately
65,000 gross square feet with no basement. There will be 14 units housed on the first floor
and 18 units each housed on floors two and three. Square footages will range from 602 up to 606 for
the one-bedrooms, 896 for two-bedrooms, and 1,107 to 1,229 for the three-bedroom units.
There will also be a third-floor rooftop terrace for residents and retail space on the ground
floor. Outdoors will contain a public plaza fronting Jackson Boulevard that will contain
seat walls surrounded by landscaping a kids play area nook garden and resident patio the development
is to be built on seven contiguous parcels three city owned two from the cook county land bank
and two owned by people's community development association of chicago so when the city sells land
So when the city sells land parcels for a nominal amount, especially for the affordable housing
transactions, it serves as another financing tool by allowing the acquisition cost of the
city-owned land to be written down and excluded from the total development cost.
This way, the city avoids effectively paying for its own land, but the developer and development
benefits because the land value can support a seller's note.
A seller's note is a form of debt financing structured as an interest-bearing balloon
loan that is subordinate to the banks and governmental loans.
The note is generally equal to the net land value or a portion thereof and can be used
to generate the donation tax credits for the benefit of the project.
Donation tax credits can be in the form of land, land leases, or actual cash and qualified
donors receive a one-time tax credit on their Illinois state income tax equal to 50% of the
value of the donation. In this particular transaction, the seven lots as is collectively
appraised for $1,120,000. At closing, $390,500 will be paid with $70,500 going back to the
Cook County Land Bank for transactional costs and the remaining $320,000 to pay for the privately
owned land and their holding and transactional costs. The remaining $729,497 is the net appraised
value and what constitutes the seller's note. That value will then be used to determine the
donation tax credits, which as I mentioned is half of that. So it would be $364,749. And that
$364,749 will then be sold to generate equity of $322,803.
three hundred twenty two thousand eight hundred and three dollars for the benefit of the transaction
so the current total development cost is thirty nine point eight million which will consist of
eleven point five million of tiff counting for twenty nine percent of the total development cost
and then the other sources will consist of equity loans and grants the fifteen point eight million
of equity shown is generated from the 1.8 million of 9% low-income housing tax credits
and developer equity contribution. I already spoke about the donation tax credit equity
of the 322-803, and it accounts for 1% of the total development costs. There will be
a permanent first mortgage loan of approximately $2 million, which will carry a market interest
rate and term, and the Department of Housing multifamily loan funds of approximately $9.1
million accounts for 23% of the total development costs. The ComEd grant of approximately $323,000
and seller's note that I've already explained accounts for the remaining 3% of the total
development costs. The uses consist of hard costs of a little over $30 million. This line item
includes contingency, environmental remediation costs, and the core and shell build-out of a
commercial retail space. It accounts for 75% of the costs. The soft cost line item that you see
at a little over $6 million includes the developer fee of $2.1 million. And the remaining costs that
are broken out are for financing, interest expense, and insurance, which combined accounts for 7%
of the total development cost. The per unit total development cost is $797,616 per unit.
Driving factors of this cost are the low economies of scale, the fluctuating interest rates,
the fluctuating interest rates, the labor costs and materials, and the passage of time.
This transaction has been on the books, and they have been working, the developers have
been working on this since 2020.
They submitted an application in 2021, was not chosen.
They retooled their application and resubmitted in 2023.
Of the 50 units, 19 will be one-bedrooms, 20 will be two-bedrooms, and 11 will be three-bedroom
units.
Five will rent at 30% of the area median income, five at the 50% area median income, and the
remaining 40 at 60% of the area median income.
Three of the units will be permanent supportive housing units, and the average area median
income for East Garfield Park is $47,004.
So the next three slides are the 2026 income limits and maximum affordable monthly rents
that are set by HUD on an annual basis and covers the Chicago, Naperville, and Joliet,
Illinois HUD markets. Affordable rents. Excuse me. Alderman Taylor, and whoever who cannot see that,
we will get this form for you. It does not change, but we'll make sure that you get it.
Affordable rents paid by the tenant is based on the tenant's income and not on market comparables.
So Harvest Homes 2 is located approximately four miles west of the loop.
Jackson Boulevard is on the north.
Holman Avenue is on the east.
West Fifth Avenue is on the south.
And St. Louis Avenue is on the west.
The Harvest Homes 1 development, which contains...
The Harvest Homes 1 development, which contains the 36 affordable units, is what you see.
It's the little arrow that you see between the project location and the People's Church of the Harvest.
Garfield Park is also west of the site, and the CTA Blue Line and Eisenhower Expressway is approximately three-quarter miles south of the proposed site.
Marshall Metro High School is northeast of the site.
Looking from the southwest, this is the Fifth Avenue view, which shows the off-street parking
spaces and the main entryway of the residential building.
The view from the northeast shows Jackson Boulevard, where the outdoor seating, play
area, and et cetera will be located.
It also shows the build-out of the commercial space with the resident rooftop garden.
There will be entry and exit points for the commercial space on Jackson Boulevard, as
well as Fifth Avenue.
Community meetings were held in March of 2025 and June of 26 of this year, and the proposed
project was well-received by the community.
This transaction is estimated to provide 60 temporary construction jobs and approximately 20 permanent jobs once the retail spaces are up and running.
The development team will achieve the required city's contract participation requirement of a minimum of 26 and 6 MWBE for the project.
This is an ETOD site with CTA bus transportation on Jackson Boulevard, as well as Homan Avenue, designated bike lanes on Jackson Boulevard, and the aforementioned CTA Blue Line train station and Eisenhower Expressway.
Harvest Homes 2 will achieve 100 points in Chicago sustainability.
100 points in Chicago's sustainability by incorporating Energy Star appliances and
solar-ready construction, as well as other amenities. The project timeline shows that
this transaction proceeded through plan commission and committee on zoning in 2025 and CDC in
July of this year. The goal is to close by year end, so construction may begin in the
first quarter of 2027, with construction completion occurring in the third quarter of 2028.
So to reiterate, the requested actions are to authorize the execution of a tax increment
finance redevelopment agreement with Harvest Homes 2 Apartments, LLC, authorize the execution
of a multifamily loan funds program agreement with Harvest Homes 2 Apartments, LLC, authorize
the city to transfer Illinois affordable housing tax credit proceeds generated by the sale of these
tax credits for the project known as Harvest Homes II, authorize the negotiated land sale agreement
for the disposition of three city-owned parcels to the developer for one dollar per parcel
and designate Harvest Homes II Apartments LLC as developer. This is the Midwest TIF which is
shared between Alders Irvin, Scott, and Burnett. In addition to Alderman Irvin's strong support,
Alders Scott and Burnett are also supportive and provided letters for the benefit of this
transaction. Again, additionally, there are members from the development team present to
answer any questions you may have. I thank you for your time. Ms. Booth, again, I want to just
compliment you in front of everyone today. Your presentations are always thorough and very well
done. I want to acknowledge Aldermen Sposato, Curtis, Vasquez, and Burnett who have joined.
who have joined us and will be counted
towards quorum
Alderman Taylor I'm reminded
that the three
sheets on income
and AMI was
in your packet so
you can enlarge them
we can't
see them here okay
with that
being said are there any questions
from members of the committee
alderman riley just my typical jeroen and that is what's the total project cost
all in 39 million 887 88 okay you got that good you got that to a t um did we average out what
it's going to cost per unit to to deliver this project yeah she she's uh gave that information
to us uh which is seven hundred and ninety seven thousand six hundred and sixteen dollars
she also explained the reasons okay that contribute to that number understood okay
thank you chair thank you alderman vasquez uh thank you madam chair i just wanted to be
recognized for quorum thank you i already i already got you got it thank you sorry about
that. Welcome. Alderman, Vice Chair Conway. Yeah, do we know the amount of cents on the dollar that
the developer got for the tax credits? I'm sorry, say that again? Do you know the amount of cents
on the dollar that the developer got for the tax credits? The paying rate on the donation tax
credits is 88 and a half cents on the dollar. 88 and a half? 88 and a half. Oh, that's great.
All right, thank you. 88 cents on the 9% also. Oh, yeah, that's wonderful. All right, thank you so
much all right any other questions seeing no questions chairman irvin thank you thank you
madam chair also thank you to alders scott and um burnett for their support on this um this uh
parcel has probably been vacant as long as i've been living uh on the west side right at the corner
Living on the west side, right at the corner of Holman and Jackson. This is going to make an
excellent addition to the East Garfield Park community. The last time we did an affordable
development, we had over a thousand applications for 40 units. I will think that we may have more
applications for this set of units, as this is a second part of Harvest Homes 2, with Harvest
Homes 1 being right down the street from this. Also, the advent of the food court
in this where we have three local restaurants that are
participating. All of this with African American
general contractors and the whole kit and caboodle right in the
East Garfield Park community. So I would ask for favorable consideration from the committee for this.
Thank you, Chairman Irvin.
Seeing no other questions or comments, can I get a
motion to recommend approval of item number two, so moved by
alderman kazada 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 of the next city council meeting congratulations vice chairman ervin thank you
miss booth item number three is the substitute ordinance introduced by alderman pat dowell of
third ward amending municipal code chapter 10-8 regarding charitable solicitation on the public
way there is a substitute ordinance that's been prepared and sent electronically to everyone is
there a motion to accept the substitute so moved by alderman irvin all those in favor signify by
saying aye aye opposed in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the substitute ordinance
is now before the committee and will be explained by ray phillips santos
chief assistant corporation counsel in the department of law mr santos good afternoon
Good afternoon. The ordinance before you transfers the responsibility to regulate
charitable solicitation on the public way from the Committee on Finance to the Department of
Transportation. The Department of Police will continue to enforce, as well as the Department
of Transportation. The substitute adds that the Commissioner of Transportation shall notify the
elder person of the ward where permission to operate is sought the substitute also adds some
minor clarification language to section 108 170 i'm available for any questions if you have any
i'd like to just add that over the past year we have received concerns and complaints from
various automatic office regarding these charitable solution solicitation activities
those that are permitted, and those that have been on our streets without permits.
Our committee does not have enforcement authority,
so we thought it best to send this to a department which has the enforcement authority
so that we don't have to take y'all's complaints.
but the reality is that you will still be notified of solicitation applications
that come through to the City of Chicago through the Department of
Transportation so you don't lose any notification of when there will be
solicitation on the streets are there any questions
Alderman Riley.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So we're supposed to be getting notifications currently?
The ordinance does not require...
The ordinance does not require the notification.
It comes before the committee.
That's when you're notified.
Where would I go to find a centralized list of those charities
that could be soliciting on the right-of-way today?
We can send you the list through the chair.
We do not have a place on the website for that.
Okay.
Okay. So the reason I ask, and I'm sure many of my colleagues have the exact same issue,
is that there are all sorts of people on the right-of-way, especially in the central business
district, soliciting donations for various charities. And oftentimes at community meetings,
I'm asked by my constituents which ones are legitimate and which ones are not.
Correct.
And I don't have the benefit of knowing that information. And so certainly through the chair,
If you could share that with me, I'd appreciate it.
But I think we do need to have a public-facing portal
so that any constituent could go and at least check on that.
We hear about so many scams that are being perpetrated
on the public right-of-way under the guise of raising money for charity.
When people hand over their cell phone,
and next thing they know, $5,000 has been withdrawn from their account
when they thought they were giving a $5 donation.
So that would be helpful.
um and a transportation will have that responsibility to put that on their website
okay um thank you for that and and i guess my the bigger question i would have is that well
cdot is in charge of processing these applications and approving them or not and i guess this this
this committee does as well who's out there checking up on these folks i know it's not cdot
so who do we actually have going to make sure that the quote charitable solicitor is indeed
deed a charitable solicitor this ordinance would correct that it would
It would require that enforcement be done by CDOT with CPD.
Okay.
And CDOT has the resources to do that?
I mean...
Yes, CDOT through their inspection.
I'm sorry.
Can you introduce yourself, Ms. Curry?
Absolutely.
Sorry.
Jameela Curry, Deputy Commissioner of Division of Infrastructure, Department of Transportation.
solicitation, CDOT does to have the capability to enforce and check on the charitable
solicitations. I'm getting the sense, perhaps, though, CDOT hasn't done much of that in recent
years. Brian Alarto, Assistant Commissioner with CDOT, we do not currently have the authority to
do so. This ordinance would change that, okay? So who currently has the authority?
The ordinance is silent on that.
Point of information, Alderman Curtis.
So would that be our new public way inspectors?
Yes, it would.
Oh, that's a public way inspector in each individual ward, correct?
Yes.
Okay, so just so I'm clear, we've had this requirement to register as a charity to do this work on the right of way,
but we've never had a mechanism to check and enforce it.
Is that accurate?
Correct.
Wow. Well, that explains an awful lot. Okay, Madam Chair, I know we have another committee coming up. All right, I'll vote for this. I'd like to get...
This is putting some guardrails around a process that has none.
I'm all for that, Madam Chair, so I'll support the effort. I think offline we need to talk about, though, having this inventory looked at more carefully on who's actually out there doing this work. I'm seeing people getting ripped off a lot.
So thank you, Madam Chair.
We will put the list together that we have currently
and send it out to all the aldermen.
Alderman Lopez?
Thank you, Chairman, and good afternoon, members of the committee.
I have some reservations about this ordinance.
I don't necessarily automatically support taking power and authority
away from city council and handing it over to unelected individuals which it seems that this
is what this is also going to do but i'm also concerned about the enforcement mechanism
um putting more responsibility on our public way inspectors who are already barely able to address
many of the issues that we see on our streets and are because of their inability to address
what we're seeing in CDOT to effectuate those changes. This committee has paid out hundreds
of thousands of dollars in settlements where our inspectors could be better used. They should be
looking for trip hazards that are costing us $250,000 a pop. They could be better used putting
up those clearance corner clearances and making sure that our infrastructure issues are being
addressed, not chasing down someone who's got their church on the corner with a bucket trying
to get money. That should be someone else's issue. That should be in the full throngs of BACP,
to be perfectly honest with you, because that goes along the same lines as peddling.
And I think that we are. Well, that gets to my final point, which is that. They already have the charge to do that. We see time and time again where we can't act because it's not properly shown in communities because the signage and all of that isn't there. And all of our police partners will.
isn't there and all of our police partners will tell us that we can't do anything because the
signs aren't there saying what's prohibited and you're going to put all of this on the one
inspector which my colleague from the 18th ward just mentioned our public way inspector is supposed
to be looking out for that person is going to go nuts this has been this is complaint driven
Well, I have, Madam Chairman, I can give you plenty of complaints because I'm well aware of what I'm talking about.
We've gotten no complaints from you for uncharitable solicitation on the public way.
The complaints that I have, Chairman, are the fact that CDOT can't do the job that it's expected to do now, and you're adding to their burden.
so I would be in opposition to this because we haven't been able to have them do their job
correctly to address all the other things that are costing us money and if you're putting this
on their plate as well it's only going to add to what we are paying out already so I would like to
be recorded as a no on this item. Thank you Alderman Lopez, Alderman Taylor followed by
Alderman Sposato. Thank you chair does this this does this answer the people who are giving out
the cell phones and do the do the the gas and these people who set up tables is that
is that anywhere in here so you'll have people who say we're giving away free cell phones they
set up a little table on the public way and they're taking people information does this
legislation address this or is this only the this is only for charitable
organizations that have applied to the city to do charitable solicitation on the public way.
That does not include those rogue vendors.
So I would ask that we add that,
but is this also the young people
who are usually soliciting for the parade?
Does this include them?
This only includes those organizations.
So the dance groups?
If they have not applied to be a charitable solicitation
on the public way,
they're not part of this ordinance i don't know that you would have for you
for some of us that means calling bacp on on on people that are doing unlicensed activity on our
streets i don't know what else you guys do brian uh so we're currently um outside of what would be
covered by this ordinance currently, the current ordinance for charitable solicitation that would
get a permit through the Committee on Finance. Depending on what the activity is, it may be
CNOT or it may be BACP. So there are certain business violations. If somebody's trying to
sell something or something like that, that becomes a business violation. However, folks who
are setting up on the public right-of-way would need a permit to do so. So just setting up that
table or something like that would require a public way occupancy permit. So depending on
the activity and what they're doing, it may be multiple departments that could intervene.
Yes. So I would like to have a conversation with you all, because mostly what I have is
these tables where people set up and they prey on my seniors. And so they're asking them,
do they want to get a free phone or do they want to lower their light or gas bill and they're
taking their information nobody knows where that information is actually going we actually don't
know who these people even work for and so i would like to and
people even work for and so I would like to and my right-of-way person comes in my office every day
I'm never asking to talk to because there was really no clarity about who do we talk to about
these folks who set up these vending tables in the ward and it happens a lot and so I want to
have a conversation with you all about that and what do we need to put in place also when it comes
to the the groups from the parades and the dance groups they have my concern with them is more
around safety because i'm on i'm right off the expressway and so imagine kids 10 11 years old
walking up and down the expressway and all that traffic collecting money for the events and i
don't know that they they have a permit i doubt it very seriously and so we it i want to us for
us to have a bigger conversation and to put some some protections in order because to alderman
lopez appoint the minute something happened it will be us that will be sued thanks chairman
thank you alderman alderman spizzato thank you madam chair um i'm a bit confused i'm sorry so
we're just talking about people setting up on public way we're not talking people in their
streets panhandling or whatever anything like that or or these organizations like i don't know
the kiwanis clubs alliance club that get a permit like a three-day permit to collect we're only
talking about people setting up on the public way brian is that we're talking if they set up a table
is that what we're talking about we're talking about organizations that apply to the city
for a charitable solicitation on the public way okay so standing out in the street we're not
talking about that shaking the can getting money we're not is that that what we're talking about
just setting up a table on the street
alderman sposado the ordinance does speak to uh standing in the street and this actually
i think also may assist with a question posed by alderman taylor uh 10 8
uh taylor uh 10 8 1 6 3 says that persons under the age of 16 shall be prohibited for
from soliciting on city streets and soliciting on city streets will only be a lot will be allowed
only at intersections where vehicles must come to a complete stop and only when those vehicles
have come to a complete stop so the ordinance does speak to that um that's been part of the
ordinance since long before this this this ordinance um alderman sposato applies to 501c3s
um excuse me alderman vasquez burnett and martin alderman sposato is trying to trying to converse
with just thank you um 501c3s and those organizations that are registered with the
secretary of state so i don't know what's going on throughout the rest of the city all right maybe
i'm just having a hard time understanding this we've been having a ton of people on the northwest
side not just my ward my colleagues live by me out there collecting for whatever collecting for
themselves collecting for their church collecting whatever so those people have to have a permit
they have to be registered to do it now the police told me we can't stop them as long as they're not
obstructing traffic or as long as they're behaving and not being aggressive, then there's no way to
stop them. So once again, are we talking about setting the table up on the public way? Are we
talking about people in the streets? Are we talking about both? This ordinance would regulate
both activities that you're speaking to. And if there's a question on enforcement,
you know, I'd be happy to discuss. And there's no first amendment right here for people to go
out there and bang on the buckets or collect further sell candy or whatever there's that
i'm happy to have a further conversation about that
have a further conversation about that and brian you say we have people in forces or my public way
guy a lot of this happens on the weekend so do i got to call them up and say get out there they're
out there on the corners or uh so currently under the current ordinance we don't have the authority
to do this um we would be granted the authority under this amendment um and we do have a limited
weekend presence for our inspectors so if there's uh an issue um please bring it to myself or to
uh deputy commissioner uh curry um so that we can have them address it if there's a specific
location or group well i mean i'm not going to bother with you and call you on the weekends and
say there's some kids out here trying to sell candy bars or something like that you know i mean
i and i am concerned about there are some young kids out there a lot of times um all right whatever
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
I suspect that there's some unreadiness here, so I will probably, let me see what you have
to say, Vice Chair Conway.
I have a clarifying question after reading the ordinance.
So it looks like this ordinance will take the charitable solicitation kind of out of
the legislative process and put it under the executive branch and make it more complaint
driven which i which i have certainly no problem with is the thinking that the public way is more
controlled by c dot than finance and that's why it's better placed and then perhaps you can explain
a little bit about how enforcement may change under c dot control rather than dof there is no
enforcement now so um i will let cdot explain again how they intend to enforce this thank you
i have been listening i'm just trying to so uh as mentioned currently um
we don't have the authority to enforce i don't know that any
we don't have the authority to enforce. I don't know that any department does. So this would
basically put it in a similar category as any permitted activity where our inspectors
would be able to approach them and request to see a copy of their permit. If they do not have one,
they would be considered to be in violation. Or if they are operating in violation of the permit
that they were issued, they would be allowed to issue citations to them for the activity.
that's that's great i think this is better better kept under c dot than finances i i think this is
a makes i think this makes uh sense for all involved thank you madam chairwoman thank you
for indulging me asking the same question again for clarification that's okay alderman wagons back
followed by alderman lee thank you chairwoman um could you just have uh after this um give us a
complete flow chart or process of how this is going to pan out so does it go through 3-1-1
will we see a drop down menu so if if we have a constituent that complains about it it's going to
be on the virtually non-existent drop down menu for inspection reports or things like that or
will it just be on the phone uh so currently it is a paper process um and during the transition
until we can get it onto our permitting portal.
We'll keep it as a paper process,
but it will operate similar to assemblies or parades
where we will either be handed in person the application
or be emailed an application,
and then that will be circulated,
including to the ward to alert them
that we have an application from this organization to do so.
Okay, and then so for the complaint-driven one
where we're pretty sure they don't exist,
If you could provide that through the chairwoman for the complete flowchart of how we're going to be able to file a complaint, either through a constituent or our office, and then through to the end of implementation of a penalty.
to the end of implementation of a penalty for violating the ordinance if if we could get that
through the chair that'd be great thank you get that to you through the chair i think that requires
a little more conversation um alderman lee thank you madam chair um before you start alderman hall
and alderman hopkins have joined us and will be counted towards quorum great um i think this makes
a lot of sense to take it out of the committee on finance and put it into c dot um it does seem like
it needs a little time to bake really to work out all of the intricacies because i think putting it
in the hands of c dot and a body that has you know public way inspectors albeit i know you could use
a few more um separate conversation but duly noted from my uh from my colleague from the 15th ward
um when what is the effective date um and i'm sorry i don't have the legislation right in front
of me effective upon passage yep effective upon public passage and publication would there be any
appetite to set a later date so that we know that c dot's got their ducks in a row first i i'm just
suggesting a couple months or something if it helps to clarify some of the questions that folks have
um can we change it on our face on the face here january can i make a motion to amend the ordinance
um alderman lee makes an amendment a motion to amend the ordinance on its face
with a later yeah with the january january 1st first date 2027 do i need to do anything else
yes you need more time than that
all right uh so a current section two currently reads the ordinance shall be in full force and
effect upon passage and publication uh it will now read section two the ordinance shall be in
full force and effect upon passage and publication on january 1st 2027
All those in favor of the motion made by Alderman Lee,
please signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
And the change is made on its face.
Alderman Lopez.
Sorry, I was distracted, Chairman.
If I may just add one other question.
Does CDOT have it within its budget
to start effectuating and printing the signage necessary to enforce this law?
Or will it be adjusting its budget now that it has a new start date
so that you are able to properly post signage
with regards to what is one of the four approved locations
as well as where it is legal and where it is not?
So, Alderman, we're going to be leveraging our current assets.
So the permits that will be issued through our current permit system, so similar to other permit types, we do have it on the list with our permit system folks to add a separate permit type for this specific.
separate permit type for this specifically. But in the meantime, we will be leveraging our
current assets to issue permits to applicants. And the new section 10.8.170, which deals with
violations and penalties, this says it's a thousand dollar fine for the charitable organizations and
talks about offenses and things of that nature for those approved charitable organizations that
do not comply. What happens to organizations that are not in compliance or groups that are
going to be, bless you, that are peddling or seeking those kind of donations on their own?
Are they covered by this as well? So are you asking about organizations that did not apply
for a permit? Yes. So they did not apply for a permit, but they stood out there anyway.
are they covered under this section because or if they are an organization that doesn't have a 501c3
as defined by this ordinance they're just some random organization that might not be considered
a charitable organization are they also covered under this yes uh that would be a violation of
108090 which says no permit for solicitation of charitable contributions on the public way
shall be issued um i'm sorry oh 80 no person shall solicit or collect contributions of funds
for charitable purposes upon any portion of the public way without having first obtained a permit
for such purpose from the commissioner of transportation okay i just only because the
reason i'm asking is because all of the violations i keep referring to the charitable organization so
i want to make sure that it applies to them as well and then do we fully anticipate the
corporation council will be seeking injunctions against not-for-profits
throughout the city of Chicago? I'm sorry can you repeat the question? Do we
anticipate the corporation council filing injunctions against violating
violating organizations in the city of Chicago because that's also the remedy that's also
included in this ordinance. I just can't imagine the city of Chicago's Corporation Council hunting
down rogue not-for-profits across the city. The Department of Law under the Corporation Council
will seek to work with the police and the Department of Transportation to enforce this
ordinance uh and uh seek appropriate remedies and is that language included anywhere else for
any illegal activity on the streets um you know what i i will leave that for a through the chair
if you can not on this item but i don't it's there in 170 i know it's i know it's there
i'm talking about in any other parts of the municipal code do we have that language
where we say that our corporation council will take people to court in this fashion
If you could provide that to the chair where else this same similar language exists, I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Alderman Hopkins.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Two questions. And the first applies whether this ordinance passes or not. It applies to the current system.
What is our liability exposure in the event that someone soliciting under the auspices of the city permit at an intersection, unfortunately, gets struck and killed by a vehicle?
What's our liability exposure look like under such a scenario?
Under such a scenario, that would be covered under the indemnity clause, which is under
10.8163, subsection 2.
Prior to issuance of the permit, the charitable organization must sign an agreement whereby
the organization agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the city, its officers, employees,
and agents from any and all claims, suits, or damages arising from their use of the public
way to solicit funds.
Okay, so that's applicable today and would be unchanged in the event that this ordinance passes.
be unchanged in the event that this ordinance passes that's correct okay thank you for that
second question with regard to the somewhat preferential treatment for established entities
that I think five years was the contemplated amount and by the way I don't have a problem
with that I think there's something to be said for especially in the world of charities
established charities that have a proven track record and have earned a reputation and earned
credibility deserve a benefit from that, as opposed to a charity that formed yesterday,
which may or may not be legitimate, right? Only time will tell. So I understand the rationale
behind that. But have we looked at how that is applicable in perhaps other jurisdictions where,
you know, you're technically violating eagle protection as a government, you're giving
preferential treatment to charity A versus charity B, even though there seems to be grounds to do
that? Have courts upheld our ability to make such a classification among the larger subset of
charitable organizations? I don't know the answer to that question. Okay. I think it's a relevant
question. I don't want to hold anything up today, but if we could get back with a little bit of
research and respond to this committee through the chair on that matter. And it's also relevant
to other pieces of legislation that are out there, including one that I have, completely
unrelated to this, that's before the Committee on Special Events, where we're looking at event
management companies, and we're not necessarily treating them all the same. Same thing applies.
The ones that have been around for a while, that are known entities, that have experienced a track
record, a reputation, and have performed unblemished for a period of time, are treated
differently than brand new companies that just formed yesterday that may or may not be legitimate.
So the implications of this question go beyond just this topic today, and I think we should
and I think we should take a look at it.
So if you can get back to the chair through that.
Thank you.
That's all I have, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Alderman Hopkins.
So I feel like we have had a good discussion around this,
and I do think it is within our ability
to move this forward.
So I ask for a motion to recommend approval
of item number three.
so moved by vice chair conway recommending do pass all those in favor of the motion signify by
saying aye opposed in the opinion alderman lopez you will be recorded as a no and alderman spisata
will be recorded as a no 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 there being no further business before
the committee can i get a motion to adjourn so moved by alderman mosley all those in favor
signify by saying aye opposed in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the committee
of finance is adjourned please remain for the budget committee which is up next