City Seeks to End Park Grill Concession Agreement

Image Credit: Matt Maldre

The City released a statement to media a few minutes ago from Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton announcing they filed a complaint to invalidate the concession agreement between the Chicago Park District and the management group that operates Park Grill in Millennium Park. (We've included the statement below.)

In March, the Sun-Times reported that Park Grill's current management group, Millennium Park Joint Venture LLC, was looking to sell the restaurant. Millennium Park Joint Venture signed a 20-year-deal signed between the group with the Chicago Park District in 2003.

That contract was a point of contention for how heavily it favored Millennium Park Joint Venture. Partners in the venture include Matthew O'Malley and Fred Bruno Barbara, confidantes of former Mayor Richard M. Daley. The group only had to pay $275,000 in rent a year and 4 percent of their gross receipts, while freeing them from the responsibilities of gas, water, garbage, and property tax bills. $4.2 million in taxpayer money was spent building Park Grill, which went on to become a $12 million a year operation.

Former Cook County Assessor Jim Houlihan sued the group for back property taxes in a case that went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of Millennium Park Joint Venture. The City Legal Department filed the complaint to invalidate the concession agreement after receiving a letter from the group that indicated they're moving forward with selling their interest to a third party, and that attempts to renegotiate the agreement have been unsuccessful.

"We believe these facilities belong to the City, and we are enforcing the City’s right to utilize them in a way that provides the fullest benefits for taxpayers,” Patton said.

Calls to City of Chicago spokespeople for further comment and details of the concession agreement have not been returned as pf post time.

Patton Statement City Files to Invalidate Park Grill Concession Agreement <p>id="doc_3365" width="640" height="480" frameborder="0">

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Chuck Sudo in News on December 1, 2011 4:45 PM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

twocee

Whether or not the deal was a bad deal, is the contract that was signed between the city and the concessionaire legal and valid?

I suppose that it is possible that selling their interest to another party would invalidate the contract, but unless the contract specifically says it's non-transferable, the city doesn't seem to have any better a case than the county assessor going after back property taxes.

There is a disturbing trend that the City of Chicago tries to sue it's way out of vendor contracts that it finds no longer beneficial. Corruption and cronyism aside, if two parties sign a legal and valid contract, then both parties should expect and be expected to honor the terms of the contract, no matter how stupid it might be.

Navin_Johnson

I remember this stinker of a deal. Good to see them going after it. Classic Daley.

dopplerd

Good start. I'm assuming this is a warmup for the parking meter deal?

ScooterLibbby

I doubt if the city will go after the parking meter deal.
I think they're going to sit back & let Clint Krislov take it down with his lawsuit, even though that may take a little longer.
Krislov is claiming that when you pay for a metered space, it's now a private contract between you, the driver & the meter owners & it's illegal for the city to enforce a private contract, by issuing tickets by the police or revenue dept & it's also illegal for the city to adjudicate those tickets.
Each ticket must be a separate civil lawsuit against the car owner in circuit court.
If Krislov wins, & he should as it's settled law that the police can't enforce a private contract, then the meter company will go broke as no one will put any money in anymore and filing civil suits is insane as it will take years before they're heard in a courtroom.