Development; TIF; Settlement
Chairman Scott Waguespack has taken attendance and declared a quorum. The agenda is here: file:///Users/m/Downloads/Agenda%20(5).pdf
First up: a proposal to fund the construction of affordable housing at 3401-3423 West Ogden Avenue in the 24th Ward.
The TIF amount for this project is $5,500,000. An alderman (apologies, I can’t see who) is questioning the cost.
The TIF amount for this project is $5,500,000. An alderman (apologies, I can’t see who) is questioning the cost.
The motion passed. Next up - some technical difficulties. Holding on Item 3 (in the 1st Ward) and switching to Item 4.
Item 4 - A Department of Housing loan or grant agreement to Austin United Alliance Development Company LP, for construction of mixed-income
housing located at 5204-5224 West Chicago Avenue, in the 37th Ward. https://t.co/XHO13up5EW
This would use $12,900,000 in TIF funds. An alderman is asking about “soft costs,” which the info presented estimates at just under $7 million.
Chairman Waguespack is back! He asked for a breakdown of soft costs to be provided to the council later. Everyone asking questions so far has been emphasizing that they support the project.
A note on soft costs vs. hard costs: Hard costs include expenses directly related to the physical construction a building. Soft costs include expenses indirectly related to construction of a building.
Ald. Cardenas seems to have just gotten here - he’s asking about the zero percentage rate on a loan for the project. The response: that’s not unusual for affordable housing projects.
The project is estimated to generate $1.4 million annually. There’s some discussion of tax credits given - a little confusion. They’re getting 9% low income tax credit, $1.5 annually?
Correction - $1.5 million low income tax credit. The council is asking for a more complete package detailing documentation of soft/hard costs, tax credits, loans, etc. One alderman (couldn’t see who) says, “I don’t understand it, that’s why I need to see it.”
An alderman (I think Cardenas) is calling the presentation “confusing.” It’s hard to tell who’s speaking while the presenter is screen sharing, as the tiny corner screen doesn’t show full names. The presenter is currently reading out a breakdown of costs.
She’s reading quite quickly - not sure if anyone is following or if they have the list on hand to help them follow, but I’m having trouble keeping up.
Ald. Burke seems to have followed better than me, because he’s protesting that the breakdown doesn’t add up to the total. He’s now asking how much the developer, Heartland Housing, will collect.
An estimate was given, to which Ald. Burke asked, “For doing what?” A breakdown of that will be sent to all members, we’re told.
A breakdown of costs here (this doesn’t show a break down of payments to the developer, I believe) https://t.co/CAI5dBW5zz
An alderman is expressing frustration that “all of the sudden” this project is facing so many questions. We ok building projects all the time, he said, and this one is desperately needed - he said he hopes that the intent isn’t to hold this up.
Ald. Mitts of the 37th ward says this property has been vacant for years and that it’s a blight and an eyesore. The community needs this, she says - “I am interested in why we are specifically targeting this project” with all these questions.
Everyone clarifying that they support the motion, and the motion has been carried unanimously.
Back to Item 3: A proposed ordinance regarding the authority to issue multi-family revenue bonds to RBH Chicago Project, LLC for construction of townhouses and low-income housing development at 2620 West Hirsch Street, located in the 1st Ward.
The project would make use of a shuttered Chicago Public Schools site and remodel it to make it an affordable living development for retired teachers, veterans, and possibly others.
A breakdown of units - there will be a mixture of market-rate and affordable housing. https://t.co/vrf49qRUX1
An alderman is asking about the “construction cost per unit” estimate. Why is it over 100 million per unit lower than the last project we looked at?
The answer - the more units you have, the lower your cost per unit will be. We overall have a “healthy unit count” vs. the total development cost, presenter says.
Ald. Tunney is asking why the project includes space devoted to retail - isn’t the school located on two residential streets?
Item 5: a proposed ordinance regarding the authority to enter into and execute an intergovernmental agreement with the Chicago Parks District for allocation of tax increment financing (TIF) funds for locker room reconstruction at Gompers Park in the 39th Ward.
This restroom primarily services the outdoor pool, which is very popular in the ward, she says. The TIF money would enable them to make the facilities ADA compliant and improve the site.
The chairman is asking how many wards this facility serves - it’s in the heart of 39, but presenter estimates it serves five or six wards.
Item 6: a proposed ordinance to use TIF funds for ball field and landscape improvements, new water feature, playground modernization and other site improvements at Touhy Herbert Park in the 27th Ward.
They would demolish the field house completely to create more open space and share facilities with a nearby school.
Ald. Burnett (27th Ward) is speaking warmly of the project and thanking the Parks District for their support. The motion has passed unanimously.
Moving onto communications with the Department of Law regarding verdicts, judgments or settlements (Item 7).
This item regards cases in the months of July and August. Ald. Tunney is asking questions about some specific cases.
One case he’s asking about: the city’s settlement with Alexander Garber, a cyclist who was struck by a Chicago police officer https://news.law/cyclist-struck-by-chicago-police-offer-was-awarded-2256085/
Garber was struck by a CPD vehicle in 2017. The case went to trial, and he was ultimately awarded $2.25 million.
Tunney is asking: With a settlement that large, shouldn’t it be a separate item in the finance committee? But then he’s answering his own question - it was a verdict from a trial so it wouldn’t be its own item.
Items 8 and 9 are authorizing and denying various small claims against the city, respectively. Quickly moving on.
Were moving on to the supplemental agenda, linked here: file:///Users/m/Downloads/Supplemental%20Agenda.pdf
The first item here is regarding a settlement with the estate of Guadalupe Francisco-Martinez, a mother of 6 who was killed during a high-speed police chase. She was an innocent bystander. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-police-chase-car-today-high-speed/6232707/
A CPD squad car slammed into her vehicle during the chase. She had to be extricated from her car by the fire department and was taken to the hospital, where she died. The complaint against the CPD alleges the police were reckless and negligent.
Ms. Martinez was on the way home from her first night at a dishwashing job. She had 4 young children in addition to two older ones, and her husband was in the custody of ICE at the time.
Ald. Sposato says he supports the settlement, but he also protests that these police chases are important too. And he’s asking if the person the police were pursuing will be liable at all.
The answer: the person who was pursued could be liable, but he won’t be able to pay anything.
Here’s more info on the settlements in question: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/aldermen-to-weigh-25-9-million-in-settlements-over-four-chicago-police-misconduct-lawsuits/
Ald. Ervin is asking how the settlement of $15 million was arrived at. The presenter says that it’s because the accident involved an officer rather than the suspect, and the woman who was killed leaves behind six children. The initial ask was $40 million.
Ald. Ervin is asking what liability the officer involved will face for their actions. The officer was initially named as a defendant in the case, but is now not individually liable as part of this settlement.
The presenter is asking - in terms of disciplinary action or financial action? Erwin says both. The answer seems to be, essentially - the officer is protected by the union.
Erwin is making the case that individual officers should share in the financial obligations in cases like this.
Ald. Sposato calls this a “terrible tragedy.” He’s asking about the suspect in the case. He says first responders have their “adrenaline going” and that they’re less responsible than the people they’re pursuing. He wants to know more about the officer involved.
To be clear, it was police who struck the victim’s car, not the suspect.
The motion for the $15 million settlement with the family of Guadalupe Franco-Martinez has passed.
Next up: A $9.5 million payout to Patrick Prince, who served 25 years in prison for a murder he didn’t commit before he was exonerated in 2017. Prince said police coerced his confession.
The only evidence against Prince at trial was his confession. He said he confessed after physical and psychological abuse. If this went to trial, presenter says, he’d likely ask for much more. Believes it’s prudent to settle.
Ald Sposato again says he supports, but again has more to say. He wants to point out that the man whose confession was allegedly beaten out of him by officers “might have still done the crime.”
Next settlement: $950,000 for Water Department bricklayer Dilan Abreu, who sued the city in 2019, accusing his supervisor of years of racist harassment, including an attempt to push Abreu into a six-foot hole.
This supervisor was the subject of an investigation that revealed years of racist emails exchanged between him and other city employees. Most of these employees resigned or retired in the wake of this going public, presenter says. Recommends settling.
I’m going to have to leave the meeting soon, but I want to note what the last settlement case will be - $900,000 for Dwane Rowlett, who was shot by police after fleeing a traffic stop in 2017.
Back to the current settlement, for Abreu - Sposato again supports, Sposato again has questions.
Asks when Abreu first filed complaints. Asks what “attempted” to push him in a hole means.
Answer: the emails were racist against many ethnic groups, including Latinx groups, but don’t name Abreu specifically.
Apologies, I have to end it here! Be sure to check in for full notes on this meeting at https://www.documenters.org/, along with more info on how to get involved with City Bureau.