2026-10-13 - Committee on Finance

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 Beale. Alderman Lee. Alderman Ramirez. Alderman Quinn. Alderman Lopez. Alderman Moore. Alderman Curtis. Alderman O'Shea. Alderman Taylor. Alderman

Mosley. Alderman Scott. Alderman Cecilia Lopez. Alderman Burnett. Alderman Irvin. Alderman Taliaferro. Alderman Cardona. Alderman Waguespack. Alderman Rodriguez Sanchez. Alderman Sposato. Alderman

Villegas. Alderman Moore, we see you, got you. Alderman Villegas. Oh, Alderman Sposato. Alderman Vasquez. Alderman Riley. Alderman Knutson. Alderman Martin. Alderman Silverstein. Chair Dowell is here.

We have a quorum. We have 19 in the room. Alderman Rodriguez, Lospada, and Mitz 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. I want to confirm, Alderman Rodriguez, Alderman Lospada, and Alderman Mitz. Present. Thank you. Alderman Lee, Alderman Mosley, Alderman O'Shea, and Alderman Taliaferro have

joined us and will be counted towards quorum. 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 have no one that has signed up to speak remotely. 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... Okay, this is also... Okay, hold on a second. Oh, this cuts us down tremendously. Chairman Irvin, these are all for you. We have one speaker present, that is Gleb Stehlunas. 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 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's 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 cost 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 explain 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 ward, Alderman Conway, right? All right. Our next speaker is Ms. Jessica Jackson. And Alderman Silverstein, we see you, and you'll be counted towards quorum. The main thing

about the finance committee, and just like the 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 any time 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 promises 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's 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 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 as 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 multifamily 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 Avenue in the 28th Ward. We have Anna Booth from the Department of Housing, who is a financial planning analyst, to give the presentation on this project. Ms. 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 are 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 Fifth 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. Ervin. 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 2, authorize the 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 501 [c] [3] non-for-profit, formed in 1999, and focuses on a threefold mission

of job training and placement, youth initiatives for at-risk youth, and affordable housing. This will be their second housing development. They partnered with NHP on Harvest Homes 1. Additionally,

People's Community Development Association is affiliated with the People's Church of the Harvest, and the pastor is Michael Edy. 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 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 contractor is Verling Builders,

the attorneys are Applegate and Thorne-Thompson, and the proposed lenders and syndicators will be BMO Bank, Enterprise Housing Credit, and Clocktower 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 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 cost. 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 for the benefit of the

transaction. So the current total development cost is $39.8 million, which will consist of $11.5 million of TIF, accounting for 29% of the total development cost, and then the other sources will

consist of equity, loans, and grants. The $15.8 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 cost. 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 cost. 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 cost. 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 cost. 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 labor cost and materials,

and the passage of time. This transaction has been on the books, and 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 rent- 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. Okay. Affordable

rents paid by the tenant is based on the tenant's income and not on market comparables. So Harvest Homes II is located approximately four miles west of the Loop. Jackson Boulevard is on the north,

Homan Avenue is on the east, West 5th Avenue is on the south, and St. Louis Avenue is on the west. The Harvest Homes 1 development, which contains the 36 affordable units, is what you see here,

little... 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 5th 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 5th 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 ETOC 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 II will achieve 100 points in Chicago 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 II Apartments LLC, authorize the execution of a multifamily loan funds program agreement with Harvest Homes II 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 $1 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, Alder 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 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. You can't see them here. Okay. With that being said, are there any questions from members of the

committee? Alderman Riley. Just my typical, Chairwoman, and that is, what's the total project cost, all in? $39,887,088. Okay, you got that to a T. Did we average out what it's going to cost per unit

to deliver this project? Yeah. She gave that information to us, which is $797,616. She also explained the reasons- Okay ... that contribute to that number. Understood. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank

you. Alderman Vasquez. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to be recognized for quorum. Thank you. I already got you. Got it. Thank you. Sorry about that. Welcome. Alderman, Chair, 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? You know the amount of cents on the dollar that the developer got for

the tax credits? The pay-in rate on the donation tax credit is 88 and a half cents on the dollar. 88 and a half? 88 and a half. Oh, no, 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, Madam Chair. Also, thank you to Alders Scott and Burnett for

their support on this. This parcel has probably been vacant as long as I've been living on the west side, right at the corner of Homan 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 1,000 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 II, 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, 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 Cazada. All those in favor

signify by saying "Aye." Aye. Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the do pass a recommendation of this ordinance will be reported at the next city council meeting.

Congratulations, Vice Chairman Irvin. Thank you, Ms. Booth. Item number three is a substitute ordinance introduced by Alderman Pat Dowell of the 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. 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 alderperson of the ward where permission to operate is sought. The substitute also adds some minor clarification language to

Section 10-8-170. 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 aldermanic office regarding these

charitable 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 notification. It comes before the committee, that's when you're notified. Hmm. 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. 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. The Department of Transportation will have that

responsibility to put that on their website. Okay. Thank you for that. And I guess my bigger question I would have is that while CDOT is in charge of processing these applications and approving them

or not, and I guess 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 a charitable solicitor? Well, this ordinance would correct that. It would require that enforcement be done by CDOT with CPD. Hmm. Okay. And CDOT has the resources to do that? I mean... Yes,

CDOT, through their inspection. I'm sorry. Could you introduce yourself, Ms. Curry? Absolutely. Sorry. Jamila Curry, Deputy Commissioner of Division of Infrastructure, Department of Transportation.

CDOT does 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 Gallardo, 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, the public way inspector, and 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- Hmm ... 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. 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 because of their inability to address what we're seeing and 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 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...

Hmm. 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 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? Alderman- That person's going to go nuts. Alderman, this is

complaint driven. Well, 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. Okay, thank you, Alderman Lopez. Alderman Taylor, followed by Alderman Sposato. Thank you, Chair. Does this answer the

people who are giving out the cell phones and do the gas and the- They're not- ... these people who set up tables. 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 young people? 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? No, this only includes those organizations- Yeah. So the dance groups? The- 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 they have for- You would have to... For some of us, that means calling BACP on people that are doing unlicensed

activity on our streets. I don't know what else you guys do, Brian. So currently, outside of what would be covered by this ordinance currently, the current ordinance for charitable solicitation, that

would get a permit through the Command and Finance. Depending on what the activity is, it may be C-not 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. Yeah. 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 their information is actually going. We actually don't know who these people even work for. And so I

would like to... And my right of way person comes in my office every day. I've never asked him 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 groups from the parades

and the dance groups, my concern with them is more around safety. Because I'm right off the expressway, and so imagine kids 10, 11 years old walking up and down the expressway in all that traffic,

collecting money for their events. And I don't know that they have a permit. I doubt it very seriously. And so I want for us to have a bigger conversation and to put some protections in order, because

to Alderman Lopez's point, the minute something happens, it will be us that will be sued. Thanks, Chairwoman. Thank you, Alderman. Alderman Sposato? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a bit confused. I'm

sorry. So are we just talking about people setting up on public way? We're not talking people in the streets panhandling or whatever, anything like that, or these organizations like, I don't know,

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 what we're talking about? 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 a can, getting money, is that not what we're talking about? That's- Just setting up a table on the street? That's- Alderman Sposato, the ordinance does speak to standing in

the street, and this actually, I think, also may assist with a question posed by Alderman Taylor. 10-8-163 says that, "Persons under the age of 16 shall be prohibited from soliciting on city streets,

and soliciting on city streets 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. That's been part of the ordinance since long before this. This ordinance, Alderman Sposato, applies to 501 (c) (3) 's. Excuse me, Alderman Vasquez, Burnett, and Martin. All right.

Alderman Sposato is- Trying to converse with you, so thank you ... 501 (c) (3) 's 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 who 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 that. The police

told me we can't stop them as long as they're not obstructing traffic or whatever. 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 a 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, 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 for their... Sell candy or whatever? There's

that- I'm happy to have a further conversation about that. And Brian, you say we have people enforce this or am I public way I-- 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...? So currently, under the current ordinance, we don't have the authority to do this. We would be granted the authority under this amendment.

And we do have a limited weekend presence for our inspectors, so if there's an issue, please bring it to myself or to Deputy Commissioner Curry, 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. And I am

concerned about there are some young kids out there a lot of times. 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 have certainly no problem with. Is the thinking that the public way is more controlled by CDOT 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 CDOT control rather than DOF. There is no enforcement now. Mm-hmm. So, I will

let CDOT explain again- Yeah ... how they intend to enforce this. Thank you. Yeah. I have been listening, I'm just trying to track- So, as mentioned, currently 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 great. I think this is better kept under CDOT than finances. I think this makes sense for all involved. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for indulging me asking

the same question again for clarification. That's okay. Alderman Waguespack followed by Alderman Lee. Thank you, Chairwoman. Could you just have, after this, give us a complete flowchart or process of

how this is going to pan out? So does it go through 311? Will we see a dropdown menu? So if we have a constituent that complains about it, it's going to be on the- virtually nonexistent dropdown menu

for inspection reports or things like that? Or will it just be on the phone? So currently it is a paper process, and during the transition until we can get it onto our permitting portal, we'll keep it

as a paper process. Okay. 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 for violating the ordinance. If we could get that through the chair, that'd be great. Thank you. Sure. We'll get that to you through the chair. I think that requires a

little more conversation. Alderman Lee? Thank you, Madam Chair. Oh, before you start, Alderman Holland, Alderman Hopkins have joined us, and will be counted towards quorum. Great. I think this makes a

lot of sense to take it out of the Committee on Finance and put it into CDOT. 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 CDOT and a body that has public way inspectors, albeit, I know you could use a few more. Separate conversation, but duly noted from my colleague from the 15th Ward. What is the

effective date? And I'm sorry, I don't have the legislation right in front of me. Effective upon passage. Yep. Effective upon passage and publication. Would there be any appetite to set a later date

so that we know that CDOT's got their ducks in a row first? I'm just suggesting a couple months or something. If it helps to clarify some of the questions that folks have. Can we change it on the

phase? On the phase here, January. Can I make a motion to amend the ordinance? Alderman Lee makes a motion to amend the ordinance on its face with a later- Yeah, with a January 1st January 1st date,

2027. Do I need to do anything else? Yes. Do you need more time than that? No. All right. So section two currently reads, "The ordinance shall be in full force and in effect upon passage and

publication." It will now read, "Section two, the ordinance shall be in full force and effective on passage and publication on January 1st, 2027." All those in favor of the motion made by Alderman

Lee, please signify it by saying "Aye." Opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the change is made on its face. Alderman Lopez? Oh, sorry, I was distracted, Chairman. If I may just

ask 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 a- So we're going- ... approved locations as well as where is legal and where 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 a list with our permit system folks to add a

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 $1,000 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 are 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 501 [c] [3] , 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. That would be a violation of 10-8-090, which says, "No permit for solicitation of charitable contributions on the public way shall be issued..." I'm sorry, 080, "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. Only because the reason I'm asking is because all of the violations keep referring to the charitable organizations. I want to make sure that it applies to them as well. And then do we fully

anticipate the Corporation Counsel 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 Counsel

filing injunctions against 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

Counsel hunting down rogue not-for-profits across the city. The Department of Law, under the Corporation Counsel, will seek to work with the police and the Department of Transportation to enforce this

ordinance, and seek appropriate remedies. And is that language included anywhere else for any illegal activity on the streets? You know what? Section- I will leave that for a through the chair if you

can. Not on this item. It's- But I don't- It's there in 170. I know it's there. I'm talking about any other parts of the municipal code. Do we have that language where we say that our Corporation

Counsel will take people to court in this fashion? If you could provide that to the chair where else this similar language exists, I'd 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 10-8-163 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? That's correct. Okay. Thank you for that. Second question, with regard to the somewhat preferential treatment for

established entities, and 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're

technically violating equal 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. Listen, 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 experience, 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 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. Alderman Lopez, you will be recorded as a no, and Alderman Sposato 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 on Finance is adjourned. Please remain for the Budget Committee,

which is up next.