A contentious package of changes to O‑14‑25 intended to incentivize transit‑oriented development and link density increases to community benefits drew lengthy debate at the Oct. 3 joint committee meeting before committees ultimately advanced the ordinance to the full council.

Alderman Autumn Savage, sponsor of Amendment 6, described the package as a framework to add density while mitigating infrastructure impacts, including: lowering baseline density to increase the incentive for conditional bonuses; allowing higher maximum densities for projects that commit to high‑value transit improvements; permitting parking reductions tied to a transit demand management plan; requiring community benefit agreements; and enabling tax‑increment financing (TIF) as a tool for public‑private funding.

Planning staff counseled caution. "This is a very complicated set of standards," Chris Jakubiak said, noting that the proposal could increase delivery costs for housing and that parts of the amendment have not been vetted with the building industry. Staff recommended retaining the original baseline height and maximum allowances in several technical areas, and urged careful drafting to avoid discouraging development.

Committee members split on whether to act now. Several members echoed concerns that the amendment's complexity and the lack of time to fully vet technical details — especially for tax‑increment financing and the calculation of per‑unit density math — argued for postponement to allow further study and Planning Commission input. Alderman Savage countered that delaying would leave density increases unaccompanied by infrastructure or benefit requirements.

Environmental Matters voted in favor of recommending Amendment 6; some Rules members urged "no action" from their committee and said the sponsor could carry the proposal to the next council for more deliberation. Despite the procedural disagreements, the joint committees voted to recommend O‑14‑25 as amended and forward it to the full council.

The debate highlights a policy choice for the City Council: approve an incentive package now that ties higher density to defined public benefits and funding tools, or postpone to allow more technical vetting and industry consultation before final adoption.