Chances are that Northwestern University will get its wish on Monday, Nov. 20, by winning City Council approval for its Ryan Field rebuild and zoning amendment to host concerts at the new facility when it opens in three years.
The only thing left for the council to do is vote. Despite agreeing to table the matter for an extra week of consideration at the Monday, Nov. 13, meeting, Mayor Daniel Biss, Council Member Devon Reid (8th Ward) and Council Member Jonathan Nieuwsma (4th) said they were satisfied with negotiations and the terms of a public benefits deal between the university and the city.
Council Members Krissie Harris (2nd) and Bobby Burns (5th), the other two yes votes for concerts during introductory discussion on Oct. 30, have shown no signs of reversing their opinion.
“There are council members who haven’t been at the table, who haven’t tried to negotiate with Northwestern,” Reid said to both jeers and applause from people in the crowd at the Nov. 13 meeting. “And for those of us who have spent a lot of time – Council Member Nieuwsma, myself, Burns, Harris, Mayor Biss, others – working to get $175 million out of Northwestern, I just think it’s unfair that council members who haven’t been putting in the time are leading a delay in this process.”
As Reid mentioned, the people at the negotiating table with Northwestern have only been the five yes votes for concerts, including the mayor, because Council Member Juan Geracaris (9th) has recused himself from voting as an active Northwestern employee.
Yes and no
But the no votes, especially Clare Kelly (1st Ward) and Thomas Suffredin (6th Ward) have disagreed with Reid’s characterization. Kelly told the RoundTable she sent items to include in the benefits agreement to interim Corporation Counsel Alex Ruggie last weekend, and those revisions were “entirely disregarded.”
In a conversation with the RoundTable earlier this week, Suffredin described the negotiation process as Northwestern “targeting five soft votes,” which is all they would need to win the rebuild and concerts. He also pointed out that all five yes votes are first-term City Council members and a first-term mayor.
The bar for even considering the benefits deal would be “legally enforceable payments tied to the lifetime of the stadium,” according to Suffredin. Right now, the benefits package lasts 15 years, and “year 16 is still going to come, and we have nothing then,” he said.
“They’ve got to realize this is not a good deal,” he said, arguing the stadium rebuild offered the perfect chance for working out more direct contributions from the university for things like public schools, much needed infrastructure improvements and park repairs. “This was our chance. That’s the generational opportunity, and they just blew it. They’re suckers.”
Biss, Burns, Nieuwsma and Harris did not respond to requests for comment from the RoundTable about how negotiations with Northwestern took place and who had a seat at the table.
Kelly said she was told by Ruggie and City Manager Luke Stowe that Biss, Harris and Reid met with Northwestern Executive Director of Neighborhood and Community Relations Dave Davis, Chief Operating Officer Luke Figora and two Northwestern attorneys to finalize details of the agreement last weekend.
Reid spoke to the RoundTable on Wednesday afternoon and disputed Kelly and Suffredin’s side of the story.
‘I did my job’: Reid
“Maybe those folks don’t understand their role as a council member, but I didn’t wait for Mayor Biss to tell me whether or not I could negotiate with Northwestern. I didn’t wait for other council members or the city manager or the corporation counsel to give me permission to do my job,” Reid said. “I called Dave Davis. We all have his number, and I reached out to him, and I did my job, and I negotiated on behalf of my residents in the interests of the city. Any council member using that as an excuse is either trying to mislead the public, or they just don’t know what the job is and how to do it.”
In August Reid told the RoundTable via text that he was seeking at least $4 million for Evanston public schools as part of any monetary contributions from the university to the city. At the time he said the existing promise of $500,000 for the school districts was “not enough.”
When the RoundTable asked him about those comments again this week, he said he is still seeking to eventually work out a completely separate payment in lieu of tax (PILOT) agreement with Northwestern that would send money directly to public schools.
Kelly previously won support from the Finance and Budget Committee to create a PILOT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) Task Force, and she said Wednesday she still intends to bring that item to the full City Council for approval in December or January.
The idea of a PILOT agreement has long been a nonstarter for Northwestern, though, and there’s no guarantee it will even entertain the idea of a discussion about that kind of deal. For now, how the benefits contract tied to the stadium came to be remains a point of contention for different council members.
“Any negotiations that took place regarding the MOU [memorandum of understanding] were non-transparent, completely uncoordinated with council, unprofessional and arbitrary,” Kelly said. “As a result, residents have been disenfranchised from representation in a process that evolved behind closed doors, and that didn’t include professional negotiators.”
Unreasonable restraints
Last weekend, amid back and forth edits to the benefits agreement, the city convinced Northwestern to remove a provision allowing the university unilateral power to “modify, revoke or rescind” the deal.
But a different revision popped up in the document that remains: an item that allows the university to eliminate some or all of the benefits offered to Evanston if the city places “unreasonable restraints” on concerts hosted at the new Ryan Field. The agreement does not elaborate further on what an unreasonable restraint is, but it does say identifying one will be up to Northwestern.
“If you’re going to have a term like unreasonable restraint in a contract, you need to define it,” Suffredin said.
Reid said he was fine with that language “because unreasonable is certainly something that has been well litigated,” and that any rational person would be able to easily identify a reasonable restraint as opposed to an unreasonable one. For example, requiring concertgoers to pay the city a $10 parking surcharge might be reasonable based on market conditions, but a $100 surcharge would be unreasonable, he added.
“The city attorney is looking further into it and seeing if there’s any revisions potentially worthwhile to tighten the language there,” Reid said.
The rest of the yes voters for concerts did not respond to questions from the RoundTable about the “unreasonable restraints” part of the agreement.
Land Use Commission ignored
Several residents who spoke at the Nov. 13 council meeting, shortly after the council tabled the Ryan Field votes until Nov. 20, mentioned their concerns about City Council reversing the Land Use Commission’s previous recommendation against concerts.
After three meetings that featured more than 15 hours of public testimony both for and against concerts at Ryan Field, the commission voted unanimously in favor of the stadium rebuild itself but 7-2 against concerts.
“What’s the purpose of having a Land Use Commission or a Zoning Board if it’s going to be ignored?” asked Robert Sokol. “I was on that stadium working group for seven months, was reassured every two weeks by Mr. [Dave] Davis there wouldn’t be concerts, there was no intention to do that. We were lied to.”
Evanston City Code requires the Land Use Commission and City Council to consider four standards when considering a zoning amendment:
- Consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive General Plan
- Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property
- Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of adjacent properties
- The adequacy of public facilities and services
A majority of Land Use commissioners decided the zoning amendment for concerts did not meet those standards, but Reid has previously said during City Council meetings that he does believe all standards are met, and that “smart planning” can address traffic and noise concerns.
“The Land Use Commission is not looking at this in a global perspective. They are narrowly focused on their presentation, and they’re not looking at the interest of the entire corporation, and that as council members is our role,” Reid said. “They are an advisory board. We have final determination, so they have their factors they consider, and we have our factors.”
As a 27-year resident I am extremely disappointed in our city leadership and the way it handled the entire process – especially during the so-called “negotiations” over the last couple of months; in the divisive, hateful and insulting “discourse” among residents; and in the way the university (my alma mater) has handled their side of the process from day one.
Every one of the city council members who is in favor of the re-zoning, ran on a platform of transparency. The secret and rogue negotiations were hardly that. I have lived here for 43 years, and this is the most contentious and divided I have seen our city. We now mirror the rest of the US, divided and with little hope for reconciliation. This is a very sad day for Evanston.
Mayor Biss should realize that these comments week after week represent real opposition to his support of this agreement. Rather than leading as a mayor who was elected by voters in all 9 wards, he is acting like others on the council who are on record supporting the proposal and are negotiating either singly, or in small groups, for what the public benefits agreement should include. Mayor Biss should have provided guidance as to how the city and the council would tackle the negotiations and define the perimeters for doing so. Instead it is free-for-all or tag team with no one entity representing the city. They say they are satisfied with the negotiations. One has only to look at public comment, here or during community meetings to realize that not everyone agrees with their opinion and are not “satisfied.” The negotiations, if one an call them that, may have proceeded the way it did for reasons of obfuscation and disregard for informing the public. Whatever it is, our elected representatives are not speaking with one voice and that puts the city at a distinct disadvantage. Mr. Reid’s bombastic boasting supposedly on behalf of his constituents is a skill set he has perfected, but this does not lead to a workable agreement for all residents. Even people who support the Ryan plan do not like the way the process has been conducted.
As Mr. Suffredin pointed out, all of the “yes” supporters of this plan are first-term council reps or a first-term mayor. In other words, one cannot be a neophyte negotiator when dealing with Northwestern. The city needs a team of savvy negotiators that matches Northwestern’s organization. Unfortunately, Northwestern knew that the PBA would drive the negotiations and tangle up the discussion over equity issues that seem to dominate our council when the real focus should be on zoning and land use. The Ryan Field proposal has been a cynical presentation from the very beginning. When the residents surrounding the stadium voiced objections to the plan, there were those who insinuated that these residents would be the reason for losing all of this supposed funding for needed programs for those Evanston residents with less if the deal was not approved. Unfortunately, this situation allows Northwestern cover while residents point fingers at each other rather than addressing the real issues: zoning, land use, taxes; in other words, all the big issues are set aside when they throw some crumbs at us. Mayor Biss should see through the manipulation and not vote to break another tie and advise the council to revisit the proposal for a mutually satisfactory solution.
The council should approve the new stadium without the concerts, but with some type of MOU. The concerts and an attached MOU should be continued to be discussed. Concert could be tried and see how well NU manages them. If NU cannot build the stadium without the concerts they would not be able to build them with them. The value of the concerts in a $800 million project is not significant.
This is amateur hour negotiating on the part of our city. I wonder if Mayor Biss and the self-appointed council members who are negotiating are aware that they are creating some perverted form of eminent domain by taking away 1000s of people’s right to quiet enjoyment of their property and allowing NU, a private corporation to be exempt from Evanston zoning standards and Comprehensive Plan requirements, for the sake of other wards. That’s a slippery slope of zoning. Which ward is next?
Evanston talks a big story of the importance of inclusion, however Mayor Biss, Reid, Burns, Harris, Nieuwsma EXCLUDED from the “negotiating table” representatives from any of the Community organizations who opposed the text amendment and initiated the call for a Community Benefits Agreement CBA and that would be tied to the building of the stadium, not tied to a text amendment.
NU has world class law and business schools. Mayor Biss let everyone, except for Northwestern, down by not leading in helping establish a competent negotiation process before individual council members started negotiations. Biss, who loves “special orders of business” at Council meetings, could have made a” special order of business” to establish a negotiation process and should not have bypassed the planning and development committee.
The city should have an established negotiating team which operates as one voice. To allow any council member to act independently and exclude from the conversation those who disagree with them is a sure way to widen the divide in our city. We can do better than this. Stop all negotiations and reset.
I tend to be in favor of the NU rebuild and concerts but rather than have individuals negotiating on behalf of the citizens, does it make sense to have a strategy and team? You know, with established goals and objectives.
While I’m sure Alderman Reid is an expert negotiator (he regularly cows the council as we all can see) this deal has far greater importance than just to the benefits of him and his ward. What does Alderperson Revelle have to say, for example? Does this impact her ward at all? Alderperson Wynne?
Did the mayor appoint a committee or, as Alder Reid suggests, was it every alderperson for themselves in negotiating with Northwestern University. Maybe Mayor Biss did appoint a committee but why wasn’t this public knowledge? Why wasn’t the entire council engaged?
This lack of transparency and veil of secrecy does not encourage trust.
Interesting, “reaching out” to Dave Davis”, but not interested in “reaching out” to the community until the eleventh hour.
BTW, those of us demanding a Community Benefits Agreement reached out to city council members AND the mayor several months ago. We never heard back.
Thanks Duncan Agnew for a very well written article. Any agreement that allows one side activities in perpetuity and the other side, compensation for 15 years is unfair and just bad for Evanston, like the Parking Meter contract Chicago signed …. except worse. That’s why I urge the Council to defeat the “concert – tax status change” amendment.
I know this wouldn’t/couldn’t happen…think of this as a thought experiment:
Would Devon Reid and the 8th ward be happy if NU’s stadium was built at James Park and concerts were there over the summer? Lots of land, lots of room for parking…if the 8th ward wants the stadium, let them have it.
Sadly, once this is voted in, it can not be undone.
NU has clauses in the MOU that indicate that they will sue the city for the full cost of the new stadium. A former judge stated to the City council that NU would likely win that law
The entire story of the Northwestern ‘negotiations,’ if something so one sided can be called a negotiation, is revealed in alderman Reid’s comment that he negotiated directly, on his own with the University with whatever information the University gave him. And that information, as alderman Suffredin observed in a carefully documented email, left out just about all the financial projections from revenue sources that any analyst would need before entering negotiations. In the real corporate world, there only a relatively limited number of people with the accounting, legal, banking and other skills necessary to know precisely what sort of information is essential to make an informed judgment about a deal and, equally important, to know whether a counter party’s offer is worth considering seriously. In today’s highly mathematical business world there are only a relatively few people even in large corporations and law and accounting firms who could can do this well. So, it is no personal comment on Mr. Reid to say that he or anyone else on the council was not in a position to negotiate a deal directly with a large education corporation with a l5 billion dollar endowment and the lawyers and investment bankers that go with these financial resources. The mayor should have know or perhaps knows this and should have at least hired an outside M and A consultant or investment banker to look at the deal objectively, to break it down for the council and to point out what critical financial information Northwestern was withholding. Judging from reports in this paper it appears that he was ready to sign just about any agreement Northwestern presented to the city. More is the pity.
The mutual benefits agreement should be negotiated by qualified attorneys who actually have the legal credentials in mediation and negotiation to create a strong, legally binding agreement that is in perpetuity. As a current resident of the 7th Ward I view the proceedings by the City Council to be shady, lacking in transparency, and really undemocratic. Backroom deals have been negotiated by individuals who are not attorneys and do not even live in either the 7th Ward or the 6th Ward. The two attorneys on the City Council are Melissa Wynne in the 3rd Ward and Tom Suffredin in the 6th Ward.
I believe in compassion and empathy toward others. “Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you.” This code of ethics is applicable across religions or even among those who do not identify with a specific religion. It’s a moral way of life. Apparently those who voted in favor of having a minimum of 6 mega-concerts at a new Ryan Field do not adhere to these principles. It’s OK with them as long as it is not in their neighborhood. With a lack of credible review of the arduous Land Use Commission meetings and without an understanding of state law regarding noise tolerance, air quality issues (such as hazardous diesel truck omissions), and toxic waste disposal requirements, those 5 people just are giving the go ahead to something that will forever destroy my neighborhood.
I’m renting. I will be out of Evanston when my lease expires in the Spring as the result of this travesty. But I will feel really concerned for my friends and neighbors here, many of whom have lived in the 7th Ward for 30-40 years and beyond. I will feel really concerned for the patients, health care workers, and first responders at Northshore University Health Care Evanston (1,500 feet from Ryan Field) who will suffer from greatly from all of the noise and commotion from the demolition, reconstruction, and concerts.
Isn’t Reid the Council Member who wanted to bring topless beaches to Evanston and legalize rock throwing? Is he even credible?
Um, no.
Didn’t some commenter on ER insist D. Reid recuse himself because he took public assistance. As if taking public assistance is special treatment that no one asides of him is entitled to….but everyone is entitled to.
What’s wrong with a topless beach? Are guys required to wear shirts in Evanston beaches?
Tragically, Northwestern has managed to trick some of our public servants – including our mayor – into connecting the benefits NU should and must pay Evanston with what NU should be allowed to inflict upon the peaceful character of a family-oriented neighborhood. Anyone in doubt of what will happen if billionaire Patrick Ryan – who surely wouldn’t tolerate such degradation if he lived on Livingston, or Eastwood or Asbury or across Central or Isabella street or anywhere in the stadium’s ambit – gets his wish MUST read Steven Harper’s 13 November RoundTable “Guest essay: It was never about 6 concerts”.
The essential character of a neighborhood, where people seek quiet refuge from workplace pressures or peaceful enjoyment of retirement, where they bring up their kids in an environment not constantly intruding on their sleep and imaginations, and where emergency access to their nearby hospital (or any other) and the availability of their local fire department (or any other) should be as immediate as they have a right to expect – has nothing whatsoever to do with CBAs and MOUs.
Caving to NU’s manipulative conflation of the price it should pay for its privilege of removing immensely valuable tax revenue from Evanston with the right to degrade the environment for miles around is nothing less than a cynical bribe. It appears the City is headed for a tragic failure of leadership.
John B. Austin
7th Ward
Mr Reid,
With all due respect, you are the one who doesn’t understand your job. In any organization, individual members are not allowed to negotiate for the whole without the authority of the whole. And to do so is highly offensive and disrespectful of the whole.
And to Mr Biss, Ms Harris and Mr Nieuwsma,
What about Open Meetings Act violations? If Mr Reid, Ms. Harris and Mr Biss (3 of 5 yes votes) all met with NU attorneys and others, would that not be considered a violation? What about emails and phone calls? You all don’t have to be in the same room to have broken the law; if you are discussing it among yourselves, or via email or phone calls, brokering a deal with Northwestern, I believe that is a violation of Open Meetings Act. Why do you think the Act was put in place? To prevent just that kind of backroom deal that you just inflicted on the rest of the city.
By acting on his own, Council Member Reed has fallen prey to the “divide and conquer” tactics that NU has employed to gain the zoning variances it seeks. Evanston is a city, not a collection of wards. CM Reed does not represent the whole city and should not have been negotiating separately outside of any official discussions. A seemingly opaque, disorganized and haphazard negotiation process on the part of the city perhaps encouraged CM Reed. Our City Council should have had a discussion and an agreed upon approach on how to both solicit public input and to negotiate with NU. The lack of leadership and management on the part of Mayor Biss is mostly to blame. He has been MIA publicly. The distrust, anger, ill will and contentiousness we have in the city right now will remain a part of his legacy.
It’s interesting that the City thinks this is kosher — the selling of one ward’s zoning protections by alders from other wards. They must be getting some interesting legal advice.
I don’t think they are getting any legal advice-by design.
The factors relied on by the Land Use Commission are the same factors to be considered by the City Council. The Council does have legislative discretion, but the council must still consider the four factors set forth in the zoning code. If Reid really believes all four factors are satisfied by NU’s application, I’d like to know what he’s been smoking.
How can it be proper for the Mayor and 3 City Council members to negotiate an MOU (or any agreement) with Northwestern without even informing all Council Members, let alone limiting their participation in the process? Who appointed them to be the negotiating committee? Apparently it was Northwestern who did that.
And why would our City Council and Mayor buy a pig in a poke? Why don’t they demand to a sound test at concert level in the current stadium before they forever relinquish our ability to retrieve our community’s zoning protection? Northwestern said it wouldn’t be valid because it’s not the new stadium, but it would certainly be better than their self interested, promotional speculation.
Northwestern and the billionaire have made unenforceable promises which they can toss aside whenever they like. They have promoted untruths about expert evidence regarding parking and noise and pollution and the number of events they will host. It’s certainly not only 6 concerts. They have deflected, denied and disavowed. They are untrustworthy and disingenuous.
Why would our City Council take their word for anything? And why would they take such a bad deal? What’s in it for them?
Mary Anne Wexler
I lean toward pro-stadium, but after reading this article, I conclude that the city is not bargaining hard enough. We should learn from people (like the recently victorious UAW srikers!) who know how to stick to their demands and who are willing to walk away from an agreement. It’s clear to me that the city has much less to lose than NU does. So bargain hard!
One quote really stands out. “I did my job”. Let’s see if overturning the LUC recommendation, ignoring his own demand for $4 million by saying we’ll work on that later and then admits to working one off with Mr. Davis and NU in private meetings is doing your job, that doesn’t sound like a part of your Council job it sounds like an individual going rogue. Any and all meetings on this topic, should have been open to the public. One-offs certainly raise questions and saying that some of the representatives of the other Wards just weren’t interested enough to represent their constituent interests is absurd. Thanks Evanston Roundtable for covering this ongoing process for making our City less liveable and more dependent and constrained by NU in the future. I’m feeling we are about to get annexed by the City of Chicago Council members and their support for that 75 year parking contract.
A new Mayor and 4 new Council members can reverse this damage. Northwestern’s insistence on purchasing a change to Evanston’s zoning laws is unreasonable and unethical. I am willing to work with all organizing efforts to replace the individuals supporting the concerts.