Good evening and welcome to the August 19th Naperville City Council meeting.

Roll call.

Here.

Gibson.

Here.

Holdsauer.

Here.

Kelly.

Here.

Longabaugh.

Here.

Here.

Saied.

Here.

White.

Here.

Wilson.

Here.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

We begin this evening with awards and recognition.

Chief Jason Harry's from the police department is going to present the police department's good catch award.

Chief.

Before I get started, I knew we'd have a lot of people here when folks heard I was going to speak and give out a good catch award, but you guys are amazing.

Thank you for coming to support us tonight.

Tonight I'm honored to recognize a remarkable act of courage by North Aurora resident who's with us tonight, Mr.

Kyle Getzman.

Back in May of this year, Officer Scalzetti to my left was on patrol when he encountered a man and a woman that had car trouble in the area of deal in Neighbor Boulevard.

What began as an act of simple assistance on Marco's part quickly escalated?

He discovered that the man that was out with the uh disabled vehicle had outstanding warrants out of Nevada for attempt murder, robbery, and battery with a deadly weapon.

And when confirmation of the warrants were being sought, because that's something we have to do as part of our procedure, the wanted individual suddenly fled on foot from the area.

Marco gave chase, and still to this day we're working on his speed.

Um the Chase crossed Mark multiple parking lots, went over Deal Road and into the lobby of the Marriott Hotel where Kyle was working.

At that critical moment, Kyle did not hesitate.

He stepped in, stopped the suspect, I mean kind of see why, and held him until Marco could catch his breath and then make the arrest.

Love you, man.

Kyle, thank you so much for your quick thinking, your bravery on catching a dangerous individual wanted on serious, violent felony charges, who we were able to get into custody.

Your actions reflect true courage, awareness, and the very best of what makes our town and community great, just that partnership, willing to put yourself out there in the in the uh name of safety.

I met his mom tonight and she didn't look too thrilled that he did this, but mom, you raised a hero.

You really did, so thank you.

Thank you.

Now, because I don't think we embarrassed Marco enough, and I also think more than words, it's always great to see what happened.

I do want you guys to see um, and this is more for what Kyle did in putting himself out there.

I just like to have fun with some of the officers, especially Marco, but this is the end um of the body cam of the arrest of our suspect.

He's really moving faster than it looks, I promise.

Jonathan, stop.

Stop right now.

And Kyle's got him.

Get on the ground right now.

Get on the ground.

So, Kyle, for your incredible actions, bravery, and seriously, help to us in catching a very violent individual.

It's my honor and Marco's honor to present you with the good catch certificate and our mitt for the good catch award.

I just wanted to say thank you so much, and uh these men are the true heroes for our community, so thank you so much.

Thank you, Chief, and congratulations.

Next is a public forum.

As we start the public forum, I'd like to remind everyone of the citizen participation rules and the city's municipal code for speaking at City Council meetings.

Speakers are asked to present their comments in a respectful and courteous manner.

Speakers should stay on topic and be cognizant of their words.

Personal attacks on council members, staff, other speakers, or members of the audience are not allowed.

If inappropriate language or comments are expressed during this meeting, you will be asked immediately to stop commenting.

Also, for audience members, there is no cheering and no juring.

Actions such as applauding, cheering, finger stamping, booing, or any other noises during or at the conclusion of any remarks made by any speaker are not allowed.

If this occurs, you will be asked to stop immediately, and if it continues to persist, I will recess the meeting until the audience abides by the rules in our city code.

No speakers should ever feel intimidated by the crowd.

Audience disruption is meant to intimidate those speaking, and I will not allow it in the chambers.

Audience members with signs, the signs must not block any other audience members in view.

So, or any audio any other audience members' view, which means you can keep them at chest level, but you can't raise them above your head or anything like that.

Okay.

Speakers are given three minutes to address the council and to help speakers stay within the three-minute time frame.

We have a timer over on side dice to your right.

It gives the visual cue when the three minutes are ending.

This helps speakers conclude their comments in a timely manner without being cut off.

The timer buzzes when it hits zero, and we will alert the speaker that their time is up.

And to help keep the meeting timely, we ask that any upcoming speakers make their way to the front row, which is uh blocked off there with the the velvet ropes right behind the podium in preparation to speak.

So if your name is called uh and you are not in the room, we will move on to the next speaker and we will not go back.

Speakers are encouraged to remain in the council chambers until the conclusion of public forum in the event council members want to discuss uh or ask any follow-up questions.

Ms.

Mar Cortes, please call the first speaker.

There is one written comment that has been posted to the city's website.

There are two speakers for public forum.

The first speaker is Andy Wilde, followed by Conshoon Barde Ponce.

Good evening, uh Council members.

Um I'd like to talk about Sir, could you the microphones are super directional, so we need you right in there.

Thank you.

I would like to talk to you about ordinance chapter 9, the amplifiers.

I have a noisy neighbor who you can consider a nuisance, uses this permit to consistently play loud music.

According to the ordinance 3-9-3, section 2.4, it shall not be heard more than 200 feet from said permittees property line.

I can hear more than 200 feet away.

Beyond that, probably 300 feet.

I've called the police several times over the past few years.

I've been told that this is an ordinance violation, an ordinance needs or code enforcement needs to deal with it.

They are, however, closed at that particular time.

By the time I'm able to contact them, which is kind of hard sometimes, the violation is done.

Over, but there's nothing to investigate.

Um basically, this will go on two, three times a night.

The cops will come out, get them to turn the uh music down, but it goes right back up.

I'm also told by code enforcement that I only have to suffer for two hours.

That is not true.

This will go on from the time the permit is allowed at noon and sometimes goes to 11, 12, 1 o'clock in the morning, and the police still will not do nothing.

Just make him turn it down.

He's only been issued one ticket this past May 24th, I believe, on a Saturday.

He did plead guilty, but other than that, nobody wants to help.

They just let it go.

And it's very annoying because I can hear it in my house like it's right next to me.

Almost as loud as this speaker is right now that I am speaking into.

I would appreciate your help with this, that you could look into this and maybe change the ordinance a little bit, because there is no provision in it for anybody within that 200 foot radius.

So ACOM toad, I'm screwed, and I have to listen to it.

I do not believe that is fair or right, and I do believe that is an evasion of privacy.

Thank you for your time.

You guys have a wonderful evening.

Thank you.

Next speaker, consume.

Hold on one second, sir.

Before we go, I just want to make sure that code enforcement has uh your contact information, Mr.

Wilde.

Yes, they do now.

They do.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

Three years to get it to them.

No.

All right.

Thank you.

Three years.

Okay.

The director is going to give you her card, and then uh that's a direct follow-up, and we can get on that tomorrow.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh I'm here to raise a concern regarding my daughter's school district zoning issue.

So we live in uh Danada Woods community, which is across the street from Science of Spirituality, north of Warrenville Road and Naperville Road.

And we have around 65 plus townhomes in the subdivision, and all of the kids, they are assigned school district 203.

And we are among the only three houses in the entire subdivision where we have been allocated school district 200.

And I have raised this concern to the school board members, but they are not uh able to accept or make an exception.

And uh so among those three houses, we are the only ones having kids.

Other two houses, they are senior uh people leaving.

So it is the issue with only us and our kids, they have friends in the community, and everyone is going to two or three.

Uh uh, so it would be great if that boundary can be aligned.

The one of the school superintendent of 203 said that the boundaries are decided uh decided based upon the developer or the real estate developer.

Uh he has talks with the council members and city agencies, and the boundaries are decided.

So if I can talk here and get the issue resolved, that will be great.

Another issue we face is that since we are our kids are the only ones, there is a problem for the bus to come into the subdivision just for a single student.

So that also becomes a concern.

So from my daughter's social connections, friendships, making friends, it is an issue because they are left out in the entire community, and other kids are going to two or three districts.

So I'm not sure like what could be the resolution on this.

If this can be resolved, that would be just great.

Counselor, um city attorney DeSanto, is there any sort of uh city council intervention you think is is possible in a scenario like this?

It's my understanding that these school district boundaries are uh only decided by the school districts.

We don't have any jurisdiction there.

That's my understanding as well, Mayor.

The boundaries are not decided by the city council.

So in the email, they say that um there should be conversations held when the homes were built, and the school district cannot decide the boundaries, it should be from the discussions uh with the developer and the city agencies.

So I guess uh I mean yeah, I unfortunately we don't have the power to change school district boundaries.

This is gonna be a district 200 and district 203 issue that you're gonna have to pursue with them okay.

But who should we contact in this district?

I would say this the the school boards from either district 203 or district 200 would probably be your best course of action.

Because they are telling us that our taxes divided between two districts, 200 and 203, so they cannot accept us.

So I'm not sure how that tax boundary can be adjusted.

It is not in the hands of school district.

Yeah, I I again I it's it's gonna be between the this the school districts.

But um, Councilman White, do you have a question?

Yeah, I would uh I I would advise you to maybe even call the ROE.

Uh I think it's the regional office of education for DuPage County, and uh because you talk in two different school districts, and they're responsible for somewhat managing that.

So uh I don't I I'm not sure I I would look that up the you know on the uh on the website to kind of find the number, but that's that's uh would be my advice to you.

Okay, sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

That was all.

Okay, any council members have anything for public forum, Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, from talking to the police chief, uh the issue of uh the e-bikes with younger kids has come up.

Um I guess uh you're working on that uh uh project, and and I guess from the residents' concerns, what what can be done done about it?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir, councilman.

Uh we are working on it.

We have a team put together with folks from our TED department and legal working on an ordinance uh to strengthen there is an Illinois law in place that can assist with that.

We are going to take a heavy educational approach to this because these are youth riding these bicycles, and a lot of times in an illegal manner.

Um the parents really need to step up and be educated, and we're gonna help them with that.

We have already done some social media posts around this.

I'm working with our comms group.

I'm putting an educational video out video out in the next week and a half, and we're gonna put information in the students' backpacks at both school districts so the parents can be educated on what the basics of the laws are, which pretty much is you can't ride these e-bikes on the sidewalks, which leaves the streets as an option, and I don't know about you, but that's a pretty interesting dangerous proposition for young kids to be riding the bikes on the street.

So I really do think these are being sold without good education for the parents to understand um what goes in there, especially with the the young kids.

So we're working on it.

More to come, and we will be looking to bring an ordinance to council.

Um I would I'm predicting October for that.

Thank you, Chief.

Yes, sir.

Councilman Kelly, is this related?

Same thing.

Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, just a quick follow-up question for the chief.

Um we we saw 203 actually just sent out uh an educational email at the start of the school time.

Um, and I think it hit some good points, but I'm wondering about what you just mentioned in terms of where these e-bikes and e-scooters are legal.

I think you just said they're generally not allowed on sidewalks, and that leaves the streets.

Correct.

Um, but my understanding is depending on the class of the e-bike or e-scooter, they're also not allowed on the streets because you would need a driver's license and be age 16 or over.

Is that correct?

Or does it depend on the category or I don't know if you're not sure.

There's a lot that goes into that, but I will tell you it's it's like a bicycle.

A bicycle can be ridden on the street, and an e-bice e-bicycle is like a bicycle.

So rather than getting through all that, there are some different provisions in there, and those are things we're going to be cleaning up in the ordinance.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Yeah.

Councilman Halzar, is this related?

Nope.

Okay, before we move on, do you mind if I just insert something here?

Um, Chief, I know we're talking about e-bikes and electronic things, but I'd also like you to consider golf carts as well as uh minibikes.

That those are I'm I'm getting complaints about those being driven on the street by people of all ages without proper registration and licensure, etc.

So we will be on it, and that is illegal.

So since that's recorded, that start getting that message out there right now.

You can't drive golf carts in the street.

Um, but we will work with sir, you're out of order.

You you can't.

No, no, no, no, no.

You you can't.

Thank you.

No, no, you you this is not an open form, sir.

Your your time is is over to talk.

So we're on it, Mayor.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Councilman Halzauer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, we have a lot of members of the crowd who uh have a great passion for the environment, and just wanted to put a announcement out there that on September 10th there will be a presentation right here at City Hall at 7 p.m.

And that is from the Urban Land Institute, which is a nonprofit organization of um some of the best planning experts in the country, and their specific mission is to come to us with a transit-oriented development plan for the Fifth Avenue area, and that's one that hopefully should make our community more walkable, increase amenities, maybe a public market, things like that.

Um, this is really your chance as a community to come out and learn um what their suggestions might be and also provide um start brainstorming in you know ideas that you would like to see for that area.

So um it's one of the largest public projects we have coming up, and um I just hope to see some of you out there.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Our next item is the consent agenda.

May have a motion to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman White.

Mayor move to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman Kelly, second Kelly.

We have a motion, a second.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes 90.

May have a motion to approve the consent agenda removing I 16.

Mayor move to uh approve the consent agenda removing item I 16.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion second.

We were removing that item, correct?

Yes, but I don't move it.

Were we removing it or not?

Okay.

Okay.

Um I'll do it again if you like.

Yeah, could you amend your motion to not remove I 16 on the omnibus?

Sure.

Um in my motion.

I move the approve of the consent agenda.

Second agrees with the amendment.

Okay.

We have a motion and second on the corrected motion.

Ms.

Mark Wortis, please read the consent agenda.

Approve the cash, approve the July cash disbursements for a total of $53,127,762 and 64 cents.

Approve the regular city council meeting minutes of July 15, 2025.

Approve the city council meetings schedule for September, October, and November 2025.

Receive the year-to-date budget through July 31, 2025.

Receive the year-to-date investment and cash balance report through June 30, 2025.

Approve the appointments to various boards and commissions.

Approve the award of cooperative procurement for police department air handler unit three replacement to carrier corporation for an amount not to exceed 157,460.

Approve the award of cooperative procurement of janitorial supplies to WW Granger for an amount not to exceed 160,000 for a 10-month term.

Approve the award of cooperative procurement for ballistics vests to strikers inc for an amount not to exceed 140,921 and 70 cents.

Approve the award of JOC procurement for municipal center drop ceiling replacement to robe construction for an amount not to exceed 121,499.

Waive the applicable provisions to the Naperville Procurement Code to establish pricing for the 2025-2026 winter season and award RFQ for roadway snow removal to certain contractors for an amount not to exceed $455,125 for the period of October 1, 2025 through April 30, 2026.

Approve the award of option year two for information technology support services to Sentinel Technologies for an amount not to exceed $200,000.

Approve the award of option year two for biosolids removal services to stewards spreading ink for an amount not to exceed $443,430 for a one-year term.

Approve the award of bid for water street and central parking structures 2025 maintenance repairs to J.

Gill and Company for an amount not to exceed $372,502 $523 plus a 5% contingency.

Approve the award of bid for cartage services to bioag and international hauling and excavating for an amount not to exceed $265,000 for a one-year term one year term.

Approve the award of bid for wateress fire hydrant replacement parts to Mid-American water for an amount not to exceed 132,557.50 cents for a 16-month term.

Approve the award of bid for cloud fire hydrant replacement parts to underground pipe and valve for the amount not to exceed 186,101 dollars and fifty cents for a 16-month term.

Approve the award of sole source procurement for census AMI software to Corinne Main for an amount not to exceed $613,765 for a four-year term.

Approve the award of RFP for utility billing software consultant to Whitlock Consulting Group for an amount not to exceed 169,720 for a two-year term.

Approve the award of RFP for White Oak Roadway and Utility Improvements Preliminary Design Engineering Services to Thomas Engineering Group for an amount not to exceed 209,480.

Approve the award of RFP for holiday lighting and decorations to BB holiday decorating for an amount not to exceed $550,000 for a two-year term.

Approve the award of a change order to cooperative procurement for tollway substation $34.5 KB to Westco for an amount not to exceed $78,412.

Approve the award of a change order for janitorial services to WW Granger for an amount not to exceed $30,000.

Approve the change order for option year two of a contract for consulting engineering services for soils and materials testing to national soil testing for an amount not to exceed $26,460.

Approve the change order to a work order for design engineering services for Saybrook phase three water main improvements for to fare gram for an amount not to exceed $20,000 approve the award of change order to a contract for tree removal and stump grinding to Dryan tree and landscape service for an amount not to exceed $115.

Approve the award of a change order to a contract for fire station renovations at stations one and three to light construction for an amount not to exceed $37,290.

Approve a change order to a contract for water wastewater facility electrical technical assistance to Sciorba group for an amount not to exceed $130,100 fifty seven cents.

Accept the public water main improvements at Hynans grocery store located at $1244 East Chicago Avenue and authorize the city clerk to reduce the corresponding public improvement surety.

Receive the staff report and pass the ordinances approving variances for temporary and permanent signage and granting a temporary use permit for a temporary construction sign at 1203 Warrenville Road, Northwoods of Naperville.

Pass the ordinance and and amending Chapter 9, Article B, Sections 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Naperville Municipal Code regarding updates to the city's procurement code.

Pass the ordinance to establish temporary traffic controls and issue special event and amplifier permits for the 2025 Water Street long table dinner scheduled on sub Sunday, September 7, 2025.

Pass the ordinance to establish temporary traffic controls and issue a special event permit for the 2025 Riverwalk Fine Art Fair scheduled on September 20 and 21, 2025.

Pass the ordinance granting a conditional use and the variance for an automobile service station located at 20 East Ogden Avenue for Casey's.

Pass the ordinance approving a major change and final PUD plat for the Fox River Commons Planned Unit Development.

Guzman e Gomez.

Pass the ordinance approving a variable's to allow an addition to the principal structure to encroach into the corner side yard setback at 632 North Brainerd Street.

Waive the first reading and pass the ordinance to establish overnight parking exemptions for Carrollwood neighborhood.

Waive the first readings and pass ordinances establishing a 25 mile per hour speed limit, right of way controls and one-way streets for the neighbor commons subdivision.

Cancel the public hearing for the Everly Trace Annexation Agreement.

The new notice will be provided in advance of the rescheduled hearing on September 2, 2025.

At some point today, Miss Marquardis was asked to hey, would you mind filling in and reading the consent agenda?

Thank you.

Great job.

We have a motion and a second to prove to approve the consent agenda.

Roll call.

Orderly.

Yes.

Gibson.

Yeah.

I hold hour.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Longabon.

Aye.

Vic room.

Aye.

Saiyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Next item.

Item J one.

Is that where I'm at?

Conduct the public hearing for proposed special service area number 36, downtown maintenance and marketing.

Anyone who wishes to speak for on item J1, the special service area number 36.

The form is now open.

Come forward, sir, and come to the dais.

Please state your name and proceed with your comments.

I should have said that.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, Council members.

My name is John Knoll.

I'm the finance officer for American Legion Post 43, right here in Napraville.

Our post home is located at 10 West Chicago Avenue.

Regarding SSA 36, my concern is as we as a nonprofit veteran organization and other nonprofit organizations.

Will we be subject to this potentially two and a half percent special tax assessment based upon the uh uh appraised value of our property?

Because that would be a big hit to our to our finances.

That's a very that's all I have.

Director Munch, you want to take that question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Ray Munch, Finance Director.

Uh, so we took a look at this subject property along with several other nonprofits uh within the proposed boundary of the SSA that do currently pay property taxes.

Uh we referenced the Illinois Department of Revenues website, and I'm just gonna go ahead and read this verbatim.

Some organizations do charitable work but aren't primarily organized and operated for charitable purposes, therefore they don't qualify for this exemption, that being the property tax exemption.

These include civic and fraternal organizations such as American Legions, Ambets, Chambers of Commerce, Lions Club, Elks Club, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Unions and Trade Associations.

So the subject property that's being referenced here is currently in SSA 33, which would be the successor SSA.

It pays the existing SSA property tax.

So uh it would effectively be status quo.

Okay.

As I read it that we will not be assessing the additional tax, is that correct?

The SSA tax that is proposed as SA 36 is a replacement for an existing SSA.

So the tax would be applicable to this property tax bill.

Uh, but again, there is already a substantially similar tax uh that exists today.

So nothing new per se.

Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any other speakers?

That was all.

Okay, Councilman White might have a motion to close the public hearing on J1.

Mayor make a motion to close the public hearing.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second to close the public hearing.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion chat.

Motion passes 90.

The public hearing is now closed.

Final action will be taken at the city council meeting scheduled for September 2nd.

Next item, J2.

Items J2 through J6 are the staff report conducting the public hearing considering the annexation agreement for the property located at 706 Parkside Road and the ordinances authorizing the execution of the annexation agreement.

The ordinance annexing 706 Parkside Road, the ordinance rezoning 706 Parkside Road, and the ordinance approving a plated setback deviation for 706 Parkside Road.

Okay, we are now reopening the public hearing for the annexation agreement for 706 Parkside Road.

This hearing was open and continued at the July 15th, 2025 City Council meeting.

Anyone who wishes to speak on this issue may come forward now.

Seeing none, Councilman White, may I have a motion to close the public hearing on J 2?

Mayor mo uh make um a move to close the public hearing on J 2.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion, a second to close the public hearing on J two.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes 90.

The public hearing is now closed.

Next item G three.

Okay.

Mayor move to pass the ordinance authorizing the execution of the annexation agreement for 706 Parkside Road.

Council Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on J3 roll call.

Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Longabaugh.

Aye.

McRoom.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Warley.

Yes.

Motion passes.

Councilman White, J4.

Mayor move to pass the ordinance annexing 706 Park Side Road.

Council Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on J4.

Roll call.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Longabaugh.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White, J5.

Mayor move the pass ordinance rezoning 706 parts eye road to R1B upon annexation.

Second Kelly.

Motion and a second on J5.

Roll call.

Kelly.

Aye.

Longabaugh.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Warley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Hold Tower?

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White, J six.

Mayor move the pass ordinance approving a platted setback deviation for the property at 706 Parkside Road.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on J 6.

Councilwoman Gibson, did you have a question?

Okay.

We have motion and a second on J 6.

Roll call.

Longa ball.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Coltower.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Item L one.

Item L one pass the ordinance amending Section 11 of Chapter 1, Title III, and Section 9 of Chapter 1, Title 3 of the Naperville Municipal Code, increasing the home rule sales tax by a quarter percent and decreasing the downtown food and beverage tax by the corresponding percentage.

We have two speakers, I believe.

Yeah, there is one written comment and four statements of opposition that have been posted to the website, and there are two speakers for the ordinance amending the code increasing the home rule sales tax.

The first speaker is Dan Mantuca, followed by Kaelin Risvold.

Mr.

Matuka.

Call the next speaker.

Kaelin Risvold.

Hello.

Good evening, City Council.

Good evening, Mayor, and all council.

My name is Kaylin Resbolt, and I serve as the president and CEO of the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce.

And I am here again before you tonight to again encourage you to vote no on any increase to the home rule sales tax.

Every edge we can give our businesses in town is a win.

When our businesses succeed, they help shoulder more of the tax burden, easing it from our residents.

They're the ones creating jobs, generating revenue, and making Naperville the thriving community we all value.

And that's what one reason why stability matters.

We live in a consistently voted number one best place to live, work, and play in the country.

And to be able to keep that stability and consistency is important.

Many of our neighboring communities, Wheaton, Westmont, Downers Grove, Lombard, Woodridge, Elmhurst, Clarendon Hills, Carroll Stream, and last night, Arlington Heights have already voted to maintain their 1% grocery tax.

They choose continuity over change, protecting their competitiveness, and ensuring predictable revenue without adding new layers of tax.

In contrast, raising Naperville's home rule sales tax by a quarter percent not only threatens our competitive edge, but it actually costs us in state collection fees.

That's money leaving Naperville instead of staying here to be with our schools, our infrastructure and our services.

As he was here encouraging you to vote for the Block 59 development that will help bring funds to District 204.

An added tax to something like Block 59, that's something where you can start to see some of those impacts.

And if there's any other added tax that could give a slight reason why any business would choose another city over Naperville, is our job to make sure that we are helping that tax burden by having businesses come in to provide some of that as well as providing jobs to our neighbors and to our entire community.

The choice before you tonight is clear.

We can follow the path of our neighbors, keeping tax structures stable, keeping businesses confident, or we can add another layer of tax that risks making us less competitive in an already competitive region.

On behalf of the chamber, I respectfully ask you to vote no on increasing the home rule sales tax.

And businesses carry the load, residents don't have to.

And let's give the businesses every edge that we can because when they win, our entire community wins.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Councilman White might have a motion on L one, and then we'll um have discussion after the motion, the second mayor, move to pass the ordinance amending section 11 of chapter one, title three, section nine of chapter one.

Mayor got a point of order.

Go ahead.

Mayor, I want to start over.

Go right ahead.

All right.

Mayor, I move to pass the ordinance amending section 11 of chapter 1, Title 3, and Section 9 of Chapter 1, Title III of the Naperville Municipal Code, increasing the home rule sales tax by 0.25% and decreasing the downtown food and beverage tax by the corresponding percentage.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on L one discussion.

Councilman White.

Yeah, mayor.

I have a uh I have a point here.

Uh I I've gone back and forth on this particular issue.

Um I think initially uh when it first came up, I remember talking to the city manager and asking him about this because it seemed to me the easiest thing to do would you would be for the city just to institute its own grocery tax.

Uh so when I brought it up uh to the city manager, he said, no, we can't do that.

We weren't authorized to do it.

Um so that's kind of where I where I was with that, and then come to find out that we are allowed uh allowed to do it.

Um so I've kind of gone back and forth on this.

And in my opinion, the grocery tax by keeping it where it is, does it it's been in since 1990?

I think that's uh doesn't affect our our our residents.

I think they're used to paying that particular tax and um so to have our business businesses pick up that slack.

Um I'm I'm having struggling with that.

So we were on, we're off with the growth through tax.

Now I'm I'm kind of back with maybe with the grocery tax versus the home rule sales.

Uh again, it keeps everything the same.

Um and also look at the those essential things that the home rule sales tax will end up taxing those things like diapers and basic cleaning equipment that people will need who are who are struggling financially.

So uh, and this is a tough one because it you that you can say the other thing about food because food is a big insecurity uh for for people.

And I'm very cautious of that as well.

I know we do have food pantries here in town.

I've been on the board for Lobes and Fishes.

I know the great work that they do there as well.

And with some of the effects of going into the downtown and the and Ms.

Rizval just mentioned block 59 being affected with it as well.

I am uh I'm going to support a grocery tax over the home rule sales tax.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilman Halzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and with respect to the points Councilman White just made and um others have made these uh before.

Um I I do hear the argument of people are used to paying grocery tax.

But one million, actually over one million Americans that used to have SNAP benefits are losing those benefits under a bill that was just passed by Congress last year.

One million people are gonna have to find a way to pay for food.

They are not used to paying grocery tax because they used to get benefits that would help them get food they otherwise couldn't afford.

Those people are falling on the social safety net right now, uh, whether that's going to Lives and Fishes, which I believe um others know this statistic better than me, but I think has seen something like a tripling of demand for food.

Um there is only so far that we can push that social safety net before it breaks.

And I just think in a great country and a great city like ours, if we have the opportunity to take a vote to make food more affordable for people whose lives just got a lot harder.

Um I think we need to do that.

Um I definitely hear the point that a portion of home rule sales tax hits things like diapers, wipes, things that are essentials for life for for living.

Um but here's the thing about the grocery tax.

Essentially, a hundred percent of the grocery tax goes to essentials.

So some of the things home rule sales tax covers.

We had a lot of discussion about block 59.

A lot of folks who are getting cut off snap couldn't dream of going and enjoying an evening at Block 59 at their current station in life.

And yes, they do have to buy things that are essential, but again, that's just a portion of the home rule sales tax where grocery tax, boy, if they're not getting snap benefits anymore, that is that is such a hit to them.

Um so for that reason, I do respect where Councilman White's coming from, but I um I will be voting to support the option that is on the agenda.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so when this topic first came up at the Financial Advisory Board, which I'm the liaison to, we challenge the staff.

Uh my initial instinct was if if I have the power to continue a tax or not continue a tax, um uh we should be looking at uh uh budget uh on the on the expense side.

So uh we challenge staff.

Uh uh staff get it did a great job that uh report is public.

You can go to the uh Fab meeting.

Uh I do think our general fund is operated uh quite lean.

I think our finance department does a great job outside of a couple political positions that are protected by this council.

I think outside of those, um it's a it's a lean budget.

Um and I I think uh councilwoman Gibson heard me say in a fab meeting, you know, once we came to the conclusion that we weren't gonna be able to cut ourselves six and a half million dollars, um we gotta do one or the other.

And I said I'd I'd probably take one of them, you know, put them both in a hat and then and pick them out, uh, pick one out as if they're no different.

And that's really I was uh kind of ambivalent to it initially, but I think if you really study this uh that the two taxes, I don't think it's close.

And and I I do think it's somewhat odd.

Um, you know, when I hear the com when I hear the argument that it is close and it's a tough call, and you've got our uh finance department, you got your financial advisory board, and then you've got our business community that's advocating for one side.

I think that should tip tip the scale.

Uh the home rule sales tax is a volatile tax.

Uh so we can say that we think it would bring in the six and a half million.

Um maybe it will, maybe it won't, but you are definitely tying sales tax to our essential services.

So if we're worried about vulnerable people, vulnerable people need police, vulnerable people need fire department to come to their neighborhood.

Uh we are gonna have an economic contraction at some point.

Um, and and that's gonna put a future city council in a position in an impossible political position to raise property taxes to pay for our essential services.

The flip side of that is the the sales tax has the opportunity has the potential to bring in much more revenue than the six and a half million that we're looking for, and that should not be looked at as as a good thing.

That's a that's a slippery slope of bringing pouring sales tax into our general fund and tempting a future council to to overspend.

So uh I don't think it's uh anywhere close.

They're both regressive taxes.

I don't like taxes.

Um and I I just I I don't understand with with the recommendations that are out there and how plain it is to me.

Um I think to support the home real sales tax that that to me it it it seems like a position you wanted it to be, and you built a case for it, uh, but it's unequivocal to me.

But it sounds like that's the direction we're going tonight, I think.

Grocery tax.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh appreciate the comments from everyone who's spoken so far.

I do think it's relatively close call.

Uh I won't belabor the point.

I'm on record at a prior meeting and online and other places stating that I support the home rule sales tax.

The only quick point I want to make just based on what we've heard tonight is uh block 59 came up, and it's just an interesting example to me because when that project was approved, uh the developers said they would only build that project if they could have an additional one percent tax on all purchases within that development, and they actually had to fight council to get that additional one percent.

Uh the council said no, we we don't want you to have an additional tax, and they basically begged us for it and said we will only build this development if we can put this additional one percent on.

It was for infrastructure costs that are very specific to that particular project, but I think it's interesting, just as an example of some significant businesses that came in, certainly did not avoid Naperville because of our tax rate, actually asked for it to be a little higher for that particular development.

So it's something we should certainly be cognizant of.

We should not get in the habit of raising any taxes, let alone home rural sales tax, but just something to think about.

Thank you.

Okay.

We have a motion and a second on L one.

Roll call.

Point of order, Mayor.

Go ahead, Councilman Kelly.

Uh if I could just from what I heard, um, just to be clear what we're voting on, the motion that's on the floor would be to approve the increase to the home rule sales tax, not to keep the grocery tax in place, is that correct?

Correct.

The motion is to pass the ordinance amending Section 11 of Chapter 1, Title III, and Section 9 of Chapter 1, Title III of the Naple Municipal Code, increasing the home rule sales tax by one quarter of a percent, and decreasing the downtown food and beverage tax by the corresponding percentage.

And maybe for our city attorney, if that motion were to fail, where would we be left at that point?

Councilman, or Mr.

DeSanto.

Thank you, Ms.

Mayor.

If that motion were to fail, there would be the opportunity for uh council to take direction to staff um to perhaps bring back the grocery tax for consideration at the next meeting under new business.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman McBroom.

Councilman White.

I point of order.

If we brought it back at the next meeting, would it be a um first reading and then would have a final vote?

Two meetings for now?

That's a great question.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh we've already had a first reading on the grocery tax, so I believe council could take final action at the next meeting if it were put back.

Councilman White.

Um question can't can it be voted on now?

Councillor?

It would be my recommendation that the council not move to pass an ordinance uh passing the grocery tax this evening, but to direct staff to bring it back so that it's on the agenda and you have a chance to consider it and vote it at a future meeting.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Oh, Councilman Kelly.

Yeah, what additional question, Mayor, um, and maybe for city for city attorney.

Um I heard you say that was your recommendation.

It's possible that could be important.

Um, and I'm just wondering, is it possible tonight, or is it just against your recommendation, or or give us a little more on that if you could Mr.

DeSanto?

You know, my concern is that it is uh imposing a tax and it's not on the agenda.

Um so people may not have had notice of that being discussed tonight as a grocery tax item.

Also, there's not an actual uh uh formal ordinance which is on the agenda for council's consideration concerning the grocery tax, and so I believe that the uh safest approach is to bring it back on a separate agenda and vote it.

Um if council were to uh proceed, we would um you know deal with what we have.

Councilman Kelly.

Give me just a moment if you can.

No worries Councilman Longabaugh.

So given that we've talked about this at previous meetings, I mean we we talked about it at the meeting that brought this ordinance tonight.

So we've seen the ordinance already, correct?

So it's not anything that is new.

So if we wanted, we could do a motion and substitution because it's not anything new that we would need to be revising because you have already put it forth, correct?

Counselor?

Again, uh, when council uh directed for the home rule sales tax to be put on this agenda, it could have also uh asked for the grocery tax to be put on this agenda as an option A and option B, but that wasn't the direction.

They only brought forward the home rule sales tax.

So my concern is with something as significant as passing a tax that it be done when it's on the agenda and there's an ordinance for council to consider Councilman Logwell.

Can I make a motion in substitution to be voting to reinstate the one percent grocery tax in place of the home rule sales tax of 0.25 percent?

I know that the verbiage on that is not probably entirely correct, but just to clarify, Councilwoman, would that be tying it back to the original proposed ordinance from the last meeting?

Okay.

Is there a second?

I'll second Mayor McBroom.

We have a motion and a second to basically revert to the grocery tax proposal from the last meeting, Councilman Hall's hour discussion.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yeah, maybe this is a form of a point of inquiry or or just a comment, but um this to me has the appearance of, if not the actuality of um of us bringing back an item that we uh did not vote for at a prior meeting in the next meeting without warning or without notice.

Um, normally we've got our 45-day rule and there's plenty of opportunity for public comment.

And I just am I really am concerned with us pushing through an item like a tax in this manner.

Particularly since it was on the agenda last time we didn't vote for it as an option.

Um I mean, it let's just say if we had an up to up or down vote on it, we wouldn't even be a proper motion to have it at this meeting.

Um I I have I just don't like the appearance of that.

I'll I'll just say that.

I think this should be debated at a future meter.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second, any further discussion?

We have a motion and a second on the motion of substitution.

Council Counselor?

Mayor, if I may, I would just like to clarify Councilwoman Loganbaugh's motion based on the agenda item from the last city council meeting so that it's clear.

Um, just to be a just so I'm following that.

I understand it's it's a motion um to pass the ordinance amending Chapter 1, Title III of the Napoleon Municipal Code to establish a municipal grocery retailer's occupation tax and a municipal grocery service occupation tax, the same as it was stated in the last uh agenda item with the same ordinance that was presented publicly at the last agenda.

Is that accurate?

Yes, that's correct.

And are you willing to amend your motion so that's how it's reflected in the record?

Yes, I'd like to amend the motion to that.

I cannot remember everything you just said.

Does the second concur?

So the second concur with the make the amendment to the motion.

Councilman McBroom, do you concur with the second?

I concur.

Thank you.

Okay.

So now we have a motion and a second on the amended substitution.

Roll call.

Mm-hmm.

Aye.

Syed.

No.

White?

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley?

Yes.

Gibson.

No.

Colsauer?

No.

Kelly?

No.

Longabaugh?

Aye.

Motion subfactors.

Motion carries five four.

Item L two.

L two.

Item L two is pass the ordinance authorizing the execution of a new power sales contract with the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency for the delivery period commencing October 1, 2035.

There are 13 written comments, four statements of support, and 11 statements of opposition that have been posted to the website.

There are 27 speakers regarding the extension of the contract with IMEA.

This first speaker is Bill Simon, followed by Dr.

Paul Bloom, Patrick Caruso, Ted Boreland.

Okay, as your names are being called, please make your way up to the roped-off area so we can keep the line moving here.

Mr.

Simon.

Good evening, Council members and Mr.

Mayor.

My name is Bill Simon.

I'm a resident of Naperville, and I'm speaking on behalf of NEST.

First, I want to thank you for all your time, your hard work, and your commitment to our community.

We know that each of you has spent long hours digging into this issue, listening to residents, and working through complex options.

We're grateful because a decision of this magnitude deserves an equal amount of care and consideration.

We also want to express our appreciation that the original IMEA offer will expire this week without being accepted.

That deal simply won't work for Naperville, and we're grateful that you recognize that and have decided to step back.

We all want a solution that is affordable, clean, and clear, and it's clear that the original contract extension offer wasn't it.

As we move forward, it is so important that we carefully consider both the financial and environmental responsibilities or implications of whatever path we choose.

Tonight, students rallied outside this building to remind us that this decision is not just about today, but it's about tomorrow, their future.

Their voices matter and their energy and commitment should inspire us to take the time to get this right.

The weight of this choice will fall on the next generation and it will become part of today's Naperville's legacy.

Making this decision here in Naperville with transparency, public involvement, and care rather than rushing into an arrangement decided by the IMEA is the right path forward.

Thank you again for your dedication to finding the best solution for our city and for listening to the voices of our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Dr.

Paul Bloom, followed by Patrick Caruso.

Council members, Mr.

Mayor.

My name is Dr.

Paul Bloom.

I'm a 19-year resident of Naperville and professor of physics and environmental studies at North Central College.

I am here tonight to speak to our energy situation.

First, I would like to thank the council for their engagement on this matter.

The future of our energy supply is obvious, obviously of enormous importance.

I am gratified that so many members of this council are choosing to see that this is more than a choice.

This choice is more than about just dollars and cents.

You should be commended for understanding that what also matters is the moral stand that we take.

Choosing clean energy sends a clear message to every member of this community and beyond that we care about the world we live in, that the health and well-being of our co-inhabitants of this planet matter to us.

It sends a clear message to our children that we care about the world we are leaving them.

Since our process has now apparently shifted towards attempting to negotiate with IMEA, I'd like to speak to that.

The most important thing is that this process must be centered on a commitment to a careful public vetting of goals and any proposed contract, and only then approval by the council.

Rushing to negotiate in some back room seems just as problematic as being presented with a take it or leave it offer.

It also presupposes that such a path forward with the IMEA is the best we can do.

I am not sure we can conclude this, but perhaps we have to be willing to at least try before moving on to other options.

I urge the council to provide a forum for a real conversation about what we might want and what our options are.

We deserve good information on all our options, not a straw man built on assumptions that cannot be challenged or tested.

There are important questions to answer, and we should, as a community, commit to an open process to answer them.

Are we making the right asks of IMEA?

What are we willing to compromise on?

And what are our red lines?

Do we want the cheapest possible energy regardless of external factors?

Do we want to insist on a decarbonization effort?

Renewables only, is nuclear okay?

I don't have the answers to these questions, but I do know that we will do a much better job of answering them if this process is open and public.

And while I obviously do have opinions, I don't have time to share them here.

So I'll do so in written comments, or better, in an upcoming public forum.

Ultimately, if the aim is to have the people of Naperville satisfied with our future energy choices, we need to feel that we are part of the process, that we have agency over where we end up.

If the city takes up smart negotiating positions with IMEA, we have a real opportunity to make significant improvements to our energy situation.

Naperville has clout.

Let's use it to send a clear message that we can provide for our needs while also doing the right thing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker, Patrick Caruso, followed by Ted Borland, then Ruxhita RuParel and Mike Lapinski.

Good evening, staff mayor, members of the City Council.

My name is Pat Caruso, and I'm here as a Naperville resident.

I've also been a member of the Naperville Environment and Sustainable Task Sustainability Task Force for the past several years.

I originally moved to Naperville as a junior high kid back in the 90s.

Decades later, Naperville was an easy choice when deciding where to raise my own family.

Moving away from coal power towards clean energy for me is all about the youth.

My two kids are my entire world.

I have a 10-year-old daughter who just entered fifth grade.

Her heroes are Mickey Mouse and the late Hulk Hogan for some reason.

My seven-year-old son is a bit of a wild child, always running, even though it's critical for him to slow down and take a breath sometimes, and no small part due to his asthma.

For kids with breathing limitations like my son.

In Naperville, as well as in residing and communities residing closer to coal plants like Prairie State and Trimble County, clean air is critical.

Reducing emissions helps build a healthier environment in the long run globally and can have a massive impact for those residing nearer to coal plants that power this city.

An hour before the start of tonight's city council meeting, a youth-led rally get rally gathered outside this very building with a common message power a better future.

One of our wonderful school districts, District 203, echoed that message recently in recommending that this council reject the IMEA extension offer.

Whenever a vote to extend our contract with the IMEA happens, I ask this council to continue to push for clean energy for Naperville.

Rejecting the extension and moving towards an open bidding process is one way to get there.

Amended versions of the existing contract may make promises for cleaner energy than the energy mix we receive now, but I ask that this council look critically at how viable and realistic clean energy alternatives discussed with the IMEA truly are.

Continuing this contract for an additional 20 years or moving forward with a similar contract without a real plan to accelerate this city's movement towards clean energy would mean prolonging our city's dependence on coal, a long-term threat to the air our children and future generations breathe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Ted Borland, followed by Rokshita Ruperel and Mike Lipinski.

My name is Ted Billard.

I'm a Nest resident and part of the leadership team at NEST.

We want to extend our gratitude to the mayor, city staff, and city council for their tireless efforts on our energy energy decision.

We appreciate every member of the public who is here tonight or watching online for taking the time to participate.

The public's heart continues to beat with Naperville's public power, but it is under duress.

Ratepayers, voters, and residents should be part of the process.

NEST has always maintained that our primary objective is to find an energy solution that is both affordable and sustainable.

We have shared concerns with we've shared our concerns with the mayor, council, and staff about the original extension offer and the mayor's counterproposal, and we greatly appreciate the city's effort to address the issues we've raised.

We remain open to all options that could reduce carbon footprint, but much more analysis is needed to know whether this proposal is merely an acceptable path forward or truly our best path forward.

We continue to recommend analyzing all options before a decision is made.

The points of concern and negotiation were only made public within the last 24 hours.

Since then we've received many calls, emails, and texts from residents who feel they may need more time to weigh in.

Many of them have deep knowledge of energy markets and have raised serious questions.

They want to know how a proposed 72 megawatt data center could affect this.

It would increase our peak demand by 21% and our consumption by 30 to 40 percent once fully built out.

What assurance do we have that new clean energy won't simply be offset by more coal power, creating more greenhouse gases to satisfy this increased demand.

Another concern is that the rules for sharing new clean energy resources are not defined.

If Naperville pays for 100% of these resources, Naperville should be entitled to 100% of the benefits.

It's not clear that will be the case.

Nest has always been willing to partner with the city in finding new sustainable solutions, but a decision of this magnitude is too important to be made with only a few voices at the table.

We believe the wider community must be part of the process so all these questions and more can be answered.

We will also continue to advocate for bringing in an expert in clean energy transition and developing a climate action plan.

Both would help us chart a sustainable path forward no matter where electricity comes from.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Roxita Ruperel, followed by Mike Lapinski, James Fillar, and Dan Mantuka.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Rakshitaruparal.

I'm a senior at Naperville North High School and one of the organizers of Power a Better Future, the youth rally that happened this evening.

Before that, I want you to take a look at this room and see all the red shirts that people are wearing.

Just observe.

Just earlier this evening, we held a rally outside City Hall.

Over 150 people came together, families, community members, students, and from all over Naperville, even younger on us.

And that should tell you something that youth people, young people are watching.

We are engaged, we care deeply about the decisions made in this room.

No matter what is said about IMEA sustainability goals, the fact remains that if Naperville continues with this contract, we cannot get to net zero right when our contract ends.

And that means we're just we're not reaching our goals as a city.

And we'll never be able to break free of that contract to choose a cleaner future.

And the fact is that hundreds of us came together for this cause, and that should mean something for you and for the future of this decision.

And it's not just about the 150 people who rally today.

We have over 700 Naperville residents that signed our petition calling for this exact situation.

For students like me, this isn't just an abstract policy decision.

It's our future.

It's the air we breathe, the world we inherit, and the costs our generations will bear.

I want to tell you some stories that I've heard as I've been advocating for this issue.

I met a woman named Lori, whose relatives live near the coal plants in southern Illinois.

They're almost dying at 25 years old, and the ones that have left that area don't live past 50.

Skye, a recent friend I met at the rally, she told us that her mother died from cancer, exasperated by the poor air here in Naperville.

Take both Lori and Skye as examples, and the thousands of others suffering because of us.

Economics aside, just for a second, what is more important?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Mike Lapinski.

I'm Mike Lapinski.

If the IMEA contract is ratified, the NDR can be pulled forward to allow Naperville to source 26% zero carbon electric energy immediately.

This share is ex this share is expected to increase as the contract advances.

The combination of clean coal with green energy we refer to as hybrid sourcing.

We believe this is a bridge to zero carbon and a workable transition for everyone.

If IMEA is dropped, Naperville will forfeit the accumulated power plant bond payments of $650 million to date, and also give up the lower electric rates that result from the same bonds being paid off by 2035.

PJM interconnection process for ensuring the grid has sufficient power plant capacity has resulted in record high prices as reported by Inside Climate News.

The results are tied to rising electricity demand for data centers and bottlenecks in approving grid connections for new projects.

The retirement of old coal plants was described as good for the environment, but the rapid loss of those plants has helped to intensify the supply crunch that's now happening, for example, in New Jersey.

The United States is facing a reality that coal-fired power plants could be a bigger part of the energy mix for longer than expected, challenging efforts to meet climate change goals.

New realities for energy markets in recent years have become more, not less supportive of coal-fired plants.

There are already plans to install an AI center at the former Lucent site, as well as a new 230 acre AI complex going into Yorkville that will have their first data center go live in 26.

Naproville is playing Russian roulette with a feel good green plan.

To go with 100 percent zero carbon sourcing as energy markets are already facing escalating demand, rising costs, and capacity limitations.

Just to reiterate that 52 percent of Naperville residents earn 150,000 or less a year.

We remain in support of the new IMEA contract, which will bring us to zero carbon energy in the near future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker is James Fular, followed by Dan Mantuka, Lewis Haukias, and Tim Farido.

Hello, I'm Jim Fallar, and I currently serve on the Public Utility Advisory Board.

The City says advisory boards are, quote, an integral part of citizen participation in local government and an important asset for proper growth, development, and long-term stability.

Appointments are based on experience and are chosen to serve in part because of their unique background and perspective.

So I would like to address an email members of the PUAB received from the City at 815 A.M.

this morning.

That email came out of the blue and contained a laundry list of demands the city has of IMEA to move forward with the proposed contract renewal.

My first question is how are these demands developed?

Not having given the courtesy of an explanation in the email, one can only guess they were demands provided by environmental activists to get buy-in.

The same activists who show little concern for the financial burden their advocacy will place on the citizens of Naperville.

This same group that demands public input into IMEA decision making and upholds transparency as a guiding principle.

Why weren't members of the PUAB with our backgrounds and experiences involved with crafting this list?

Number one on the list are egregious new demands around MDR.

Ness complaints there's been no economic analysis around the IMEA decision.

Where is the economic analysis of the new MDR demands?

Since the MDR could conceivably kick in this year, it would mean immediate and significant rate hikes for our citizens.

How much will that be?

Can someone show me the numbers?

Mrs.

Yu of CES stood at this very podium and demonstrated that by exercising the 10 percent MDR option, our total lifetime carbon emissions will be equal to or lower than any other option.

It would take Naperville to 45 percent carbon-free resources by the end of next year.

As a reference point, NEST's stated objective on their website is to reach 50 percent carbon-free by 2030 and net zero by 2050.

IMEA's 10 percent MDR option combined with their net zero transition plan gets us there early and presumably would have made everybody happy, but apparently not, as the activists continue to move the goalposts at every turn.

Personally, I favored the city accepting the 10 percent MDR option using nuclear because it represented a compromise to get to yes.

I encourage you to pass the motion that will be presented to you tonight with the caveat that these are not hard take it or leave it demands, but represent aspirational goals for the city.

City staff should be given the flexibility to negotiate reasonable terms with IEMEA and to the extent possible, if only to be true to the City's commitment to its advisory boards, the PUAB should be the city's primary go-to organization for citizen involvement in any final settlement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Dan Mantuca, followed by Lewis Halkias.

Next speaker.

Lewis Halkias.

IMEA directly supports all these goals.

High quality of life, IMEA provides reliable, affordable and potentially 45 percent or more carbon-free power, key to maintaining Naperville's environmental quality and standard of living.

IMEA's not-for-profit structure and ownership of generation assets allow for long-term cost stability about 30 percent lower than comed rates.

If Naperville walks away, we have lost the investment made over the past 15 years in paying down our share of IMEA's infrastructure.

We remain obligated for 10 more years of payment without receiving the benefits for paying off approximately $650 million in bonds.

We forfeit access to lower cost energy estimated at $25 per megawatt hour when the bonds are paid off, continuing to make our power cost cheaper than market alternatives.

Number three, dynamic business environment.

Stable energy prices are critical for attracting and retaining businesses.

IMEA's long-term cost predictability helps support job growth, investment, and sales tax revenue for essential services, leaving exposes businesses to market energy volatility amid growing demand and shrinking supply.

Inclusive, diverse community, affordable energy disproportionately helps low-income residents supporting social economic diversity.

IMEA keeps utility costs manageable, making Naperville more accessible accessible to all, leaving risks increasing inequality and undermines our shared commitment to inclusion.

The PUEB has studied this decision thoroughly.

IMEA's future is secure, but Naperville risks substantial financial and social losses by exiting.

This is a moment for leadership.

Renewing the IMEA contract honors the City Council's mission statement and secures a strong future for our community.

This issue is not political, it is economic, and there will be a number of unintended consequences that will hurt many people and businesses in Naperville.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker, Tim Farido, followed by Ayana Mukherjee, Maureen Stillman, and Danielle Daniel Bully.

Hello, Tim Farrito, Naperville resident.

I have a couple items I'd like to talk about, two analyses that were done recently.

The first one is that Kessler is one done by Kessler Energy Consultant.

It was presented to the City of Naperville in July at the end of July 2025, and was namely around the power supply cost comparison.

And I'm going to read from the consultant's own words from his slide.

His first point is it is very difficult to conduct an apples to apples comparison of past power supply costs due to a number of factors, including, and he lists nine factors on my read four of up the first four.

Load shape, low factor, buying power, contract term.

He goes on to say KEC, the consulting company, has attempted attempted to reconcile these factors given the data sets that are available.

Please take this into consideration when considering the above cost comparison analysis.

Power supply cost comparisons are difficult to quantify.

The reason I bring that up is uh there's been a lot of buzz about this analysis and what it showed.

It needs to be understood that there is a lot of uncertainty in the data.

Next, I want to talk about the uh analysis that Nest did and presented here at the end of July.

That was an analysis of the price difference between the wholesale market and IMEA.

Uh some issues I have with that are assumes that Naperville would be 100 percent exposed to a volatile wholesale market.

That's infeasible.

We are not going to expose ourselves to a volatile wholesale market.

It uses simple price averages for energy.

This ignores load shape impact, ideally, price hours, demand, and prices, which are significant.

It's missing capacity margin requirement.

It's missing power marketing fee, a full requirement service fee, additional Naperville staffing might be needed as well.

It's also missing the IMEA efficiency program true up.

In summary, what I would say is these analysis analyses, as is, would not be used to make business decisions in the private industry.

We need to be honest about uncertainty and sensitivity of historical values.

Lastly, I would say this price history is not very useful for the forward projections given the expected massive change in supply-demand balances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Diana Mukherjee, followed by Maureen Stillman, Daniel Bully, and David Hatch.

Hello, City Council members, and thank you so much for your time today in this room and outside of this room.

My name is Ayana Mukherjee, and I'm a senior at Negaw Valley High School.

I am a part of Power a Better Future along with some of the other youth speakers you have heard from or will hear from today.

Power A Better Future is a youth-led campaign built around exploring sustainable energy options and advocating for a climate action plan to exist in Naperville.

At Power a Better Future, we have organized a petition opposing the renewal of this coal contract and advocating for a climate action plan for the past few weeks.

And we have gathered over 700 signatures from Naperville citizens, urging you all to create a robust climate action plan for Naperville.

The petition reads We the Undersigned petition the City Council of Naperville to reject the IMEA contract and commit to creating a robust climate action plan that transitions Naperville to a clean energy future.

And we we believe that Naperville should have the opportunity to explore other sustainable energy options alongside this.

And we should start with having a climate action plan.

As a student, advocate, and young person, I urge you to consider the implications that renewing this will have on my future and the future of generations to come.

Please power a better future for us all.

Will I be able to um present my petition to you guys?

Sure.

Director LaCloche will take that from you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Maureen Stillman.

Good evening.

My name is Maureen Stillman, and I'm a member of NEST.

I'm here to describe the process St.

Charles used to evaluate alternative power marketer options to the IMEA contract.

St.

Charles formed a task force to investigate alternatives to IMEA.

The task force was composed of two city council members, the mayor of St.

Charles, the city administrator, both the director and assistant director of public works, and three members of the community.

The city hired a consultant, Sean Kessler, who's an expert in energy markets with 25 years of experience to facilitate the process to write a report that would be represented to the city council and the community at a later city council meeting.

Next era, Constellation, and IMEA were all invited to speak to the task force about their capabilities and services.

Participants of the task force were allowed to ask all three companies questions.

Upon completion of the task force, the consultant summarized the findings of Next Era and Constellation and presented them to the St.

Charles City Council.

Here is a summary.

Both companies stated that a municipal utility like St.

Charles would be a very attractive load to power marketers, and that St.

Charles would be able to get several bids, competitive bids, for their power supply.

Both provide a mixture of power sources, including wind, solar, natural gas, and nuclear.

Both own generation, and they can also purchase power from other sources if needed.

Both offer full requirements contracts and provide the same services as the IMEA.

Both have three-year, five-year, seven-year, or ten-year contracts.

Both allow 100% local control.

The task force concluded that these two companies, Nextera and Constellation, are viable energy and service alternatives to the IMEA.

On August 11th, St.

Charles voted at their government services meeting on the IMEA contract.

The vote was one yes and eight no.

St.

Charles sent a clear message that they want to consider alternatives like Nextera and Constellation for their power supply and services requirements.

NES commends St.

Charles for talking directly to power marketers and getting their questions answered.

The process showed leadership and a serious desire for competitive bid.

Naperville City Council should do the same and talk directly to the power marketers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Daniel Bully, followed by David Hatch, Stephen Shamrock, and Gabriela Lombana Arias.

Mayor, City Council, staff, uh, neighbors.

My name is Dan Bully, I'm a longtime resident of uh Naperville.

And I threw in my script and a talk from the heart.

I know it sounds a little corny, but um uh earlier uh Councilman Holtzauer mentioned that there's a lot of people here that are very deeply concerned about the environment.

Uh I am one of them.

I've spent uh decades in the green movement, sustainability movement, thousands of volunteer hours.

Uh the same for Naperville.

Very very passionate about Naperville.

Lived here for over 60 years, thousands of over thousands of community of service hours here.

Um I spent my whole life attached to the electric utility institute.

I yeah, I I know it very well.

Um I work in the nonprofit.

I want to speak about that later because uh uh you know IMEA is a nonprofit.

Um I negotiate labor contracts for 40 years, so I want to speak to what Jim Fular talked about.

Um one of the things I like more that I'm more passionate about throughout the environment or neighborhood even is is critical thinking.

And if you use critical thinking, I I'm sorry, but no decision we make here in Naperville will add a single molecule of CO2 or take away a single molecule of dual CO2 from the environment.

That's at other levels.

We cannot we cannot affect that at that level.

We can't.

State level, yes, federal level, no, nothing we do.

If somebody tells me a scenario, no, I understand.

I understand the feel good part and the symbolic part of hey, you know, we we want to support getting away from coal.

However, that shouldn't hijack the entire discussion, and I feel that's what's happened.

Um but like I said, if you apply critical thinking, it's about the cost.

And now I wrote to you, I don't know if anybody read it.

The problems that I had with the Kessler report.

Um, he obviously cherry picked the years because he started 2016, and his excuse was that oh, the IMEA data wasn't available.

That's the easy part.

It's the EIA data that it's hard to get to.

Um I didn't see a disclosure of he only picked five um uh marketers and for his discussion.

So I and plus he admitted it was hard to measure.

So I I I have to discount that.

Um so we're talking about price.

So really what we're gonna talk about, who's gonna do a better deal for us, right?

Well, working in the nonprofit industry, I can um next era and uh constellation, they have profits of 50 and 60 percent.

I know if it's one's 50, one's 60 percent.

In the nonprofit business, there's it's nonprofit.

You know how complex these issues are.

You need experts.

You want the nonprofit experts.

I work for a nonprofit.

I created the first modern construction technology expo in the United States.

I didn't make a dime off of it.

A lot of people, other people made millions.

The people that work in nonprofits are passionate about what they do, and you're gonna get better deal from them in a month of time, but thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

David Hatch, followed by Stephen Shamrock, Gabriela Lumbana Arias, and Catherine Clarkin.

Uh good evening.

Uh, thank you for your time.

Uh Dave Hatch, uh, approximately 25 years in Naperville.

And uh my my concerns just really are that I I'm not sure that this has gone through a request for proposal that we've gone out and got formal bids from other service providers.

I'm aware I'm hearing about the Costello report, and I've read that and and some of these other things, but we haven't gone out and got competitive bids for this.

Over the next 30 years, Naperville will spend four to five billion dollars on electricity in our community, and it is an economic issue.

It's it's both a social and uh environmental, but it's at the core, it's gonna be an an economic issue.

So I I hope that we would go through that.

And I also looking forward 30 years.

If you look back 30 years to 1995, Naperville is under 100,000 people.

Uh a lot's changed since then.

And you go back to 1965 and imagine what's going to happen in the 30 years forward.

And 65, some of you were here in 1965, and Naperville is less than 15,000 people.

And in 95 were less than 100,000, and we're approaching 160,000 now.

A lot's changed for Naperville, and and I think you guys all have ambitions and hopes that Naperville will be even better in 2055.

If you do the same thing and look at the energy market in 1965, almost all our electricity came from coal, oil, and gas, 80 percent, uh, and hydroelectric, but just a little bit uh of other.

In 95, uh still 70 percent was oil, coal, and gas, almost all that coal.

Today, in 2025, the mix is uh 16 percent coal with over 40 percent in gas, and the rest broken up between nuclear, uh solar, wind, and hydroelectric, with uh nuclear and the renewables being about four twenty percent each.

So a lot's changed in 30 30 years.

The energy market has changed radically, and I would expect the energy market to change at least as much in the next 30 years as it has in the past.

So I I I respectfully, you know, I think the economics need to be understood, but I think we should be very cautious about getting competitive bidding and um and be cognizant of the changes coming in the energy market that are still going on.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Stephen Shamrock.

I've been a Naperville resident for 25 years.

Up until a few days ago, Naperville City Council was scheduled today to vote on whether to renew a power contract 10 years early to lock in use of coal.

Why would we approve something 10 years early?

Makes you wonder about the motivations.

Even if you are skeptical of climate change and fossil fuels effect, not many people doubt that pollution from burning coal is harmful to be men to many.

To be direct, it kills people.

Mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, not just anyone.

It's probably even affecting all our healths in here right now.

And if you believe in climate change and coal's impact on it, then you know the climate will kill more of these people and your loved ones, or make life hard and dangerous via droughts, floods, and extreme temperatures.

If you're still skeptical about fossil fuels negative effect on people, here's a question for you.

Would you rather stand for five minutes behind a running electric vehicle or a gasoline-powered car?

I won't wait too long because I'm pretty sure I know the answer to everyone would be the EV.

These chemicals that spew from tailpipes and smokes uh smokestacks don't just magically disappear.

It stays in the air and then the atmosphere, and then it reacts with other chemicals to form ozone and other pollutants.

Remember smog?

Not good.

You know, for the speakers that have come up here uh for the extension, there's two things I noted about all of them.

They don't mention people.

And they mentioned problems and not solutions.

I guess innovation hasn't reached the energy industry.

These past two months have been the first time in my 30 plus years as a homeowner in the Midwest that I've had my AC on for two straight months.

That didn't used to happen at all.

You know, renewable energy is a mature industry, prices are lower than fossil fuels in many places in the world.

Renewable renewable energy is not subject to the whims of energy markets.

They can be replaced in an orderly way.

Doesn't that sound nice compared to the daily roller coaster ride of street core uh street corner gas station economics?

Transition won't happen overnight.

But there are there are majority of but there are places and countries where majority of the power comes from renewables and they have a plan all ready for us.

And everyone, every drop uh pollutants we can keep out of the atmosphere, and every molecule of CO2 we can keep out of the air is a life save or made uh more worthwhile.

Naperville likes to town itself as a leading city.

We impact the world in lots of ways.

We have a choice right now.

Are we going to give in to inconvenience or are we gonna make the world better for us and everyone?

The choice is up to you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Gabriella Lombana Arias, followed by Catherine Clarkin, Janice Guider, and Sandy Whited.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Gabriela Lumbana Arias.

I'm a Naperville resident, high schooler from Niqua Valley, and member of Power Better Future.

In alignment with NES position on the IMEA contract.

If we go through the contract renewal process, we will force Naperville to continue to rely on fossil fuels for decades longer.

While we appreciate efforts to improve the IMEA proposal, the youth of Naperville, the ones that will grow up to lead and be active members of our city are concerned of the possibility of locking Naperville into a high carbon energy city for generations to come.

At this moment, Naperville has the opportunity to become a leading city for sustainability.

We can take advantage of this by transitioning to solar, wind, and nuclear and implementing green programs for the health of our people and environment.

I see a future where my city, our city, is considered to be a standing proudly on the front lines towards a cleaner and safer future.

In 30 years, I want to be I want to know that the Naperville City Council did its best to fully evaluate every possible option to ensure a better future for my generation and the generations that follow.

And to do that, we need to ensure that this decades-long contract does not prevent Snapville from pursuing more competitive and cleaner options as markets are rapidly changing.

We need to keep our options open to ensure that every year in every generation we make the right decisions for a better sustainable life for those that follow.

How can we make the transition to renewables a priority if we can't even take the first step?

We urge the council to take at more to take a look at more renewable energy sources to ensure a more transparent and climate responsible decision for Naperville families.

We keep seeing a better future in a cleaner tomorrow, but the actions and decisions that we choose to do today determine that future.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Catherine Clarkin, followed by Janice Guider, Sandy Whited, and Sharon Gorell.

Good evening.

I'm Kathy Clarkin, a resident of Naperville for 16 years, and a Naperville utility repair.

I'm also an environmental scientist, and I'm the former chair of NEST.

So I've been around the block for a while working on sustainability issues enough to see that sometimes the city makes some commitments to sustainability that they haven't followed through on.

So I just wanted to remind you of a couple of those.

One is that this city council held a workshop, passed a work uh sustainability work plan, put it on the website, and it said that Naperville would solicit an all-source energy procurement to get bids from multiple contractors.

So I want to remind you that that is a commitment that this city has made.

So as a council, you have a choice to make your promise to decarbonize our electricity a reality and live up to that responsibility to the young people.

And creating a climate action plan as the power about our future petition demands.

That can be a foundation for making this and many other decisions.

Please restore trust in that process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Thank you, and good evening, council members and mayor, and my fellow citizens here.

My name is Janice Guider.

I am a resident of Naperville for about 43, 44 years, and I stand before you in advocacy for our birth to five population, our youngest learners who are most affected by environmental hazards, such as air and water pollution, plastic pollution, extreme heat, and poor air quality, all our risk for ambient air pollution, which affects their health and academic performance.

From an early age when we commit to mitigating triggers for respiratory illness and the birth to five population and certain neurodivergent disorders now linked with ambient air pollution, we may realize a reduction in chronic diseases that often result in costly higher absenteeism rates and suboptimal performance in schools.

Asthma for which there is no cure is a long-term chronic disease that would impact a student's ability to function from early childhood through late high school.

Poor asthma control is associated with a number of negative effects on children and families.

For example, they are more likely to be absent from school, have additional educational needs, and have lower educational attainment.

And there is a transactional cost for all of this.

So as you think about the economics of this contract, think about what it is doing to the health of our children and to our community.

We call these societal costs, including transactional costs for a decision tonight that neglects the environmental harms of coal manufacturing and particularly to our birth defy population and not just Naperville, but across the state of Illinois.

Research shows that children who don't develop practical learning skills by the third grade are more prone to have conduct or behavioral disorders that result in school exposure.

The school to prison pipeline is rooted in this causality, fueled by disparities that ultimately and negatively affect all communities.

State's attorneys across Illinois, including our own Robert Berlin of DuPage County, petition our governor to improve the investment in our earliest learners to prevent young children from turning to a life of crime, launching the Illinois Department of Early Childhood Education.

What I ask of you now is that we align ourselves, this contract, our community, with what's needed and our birthday time as a population.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Sandy Whited, followed by Sharon Garell and Wendy Schild.

Hi, my name is Sandy Whited.

I live in Naperville, and I worked in the retail power market for over 20 years.

I feel compelled to talk about the misinformation that has been presented during the IMEA contract extension discussions.

The city really must ensure that they hire unbiased energy experts to assist Naperville with future presentations and negotiations.

The discussion we're under has centered over whether Naperville should try to negotiate a contract extension with IMEA, or once again, the city can procure electricity using competitive requests for proposal processes.

The decision is difficult because we don't know what the competitive prices will be in the future.

And likewise, there are no parameters about what the pass-through costs from IMEA will be either.

And since that is the case, we should put great weight on what Naperville's cost experience has been thus far under the IMEA contract.

While it is impossible to know what we would have paid for electricity in the competitive market, there are ways to estimate this.

But as is in the case of all estimates, the assumptions, the conclusion you reach is based on uh is only as good as the underlying assumptions.

Naperville's consultant chose to use the Comed proxy wholesale price to compare to IME pricing on page 12 of the July 28th presentation.

This is a flawed assumption.

Naperville would never choose to pay these relatively high rates, and the city is not eligible under Comed's tariff to pay those rates anyway.

Those prices are designed for residential and small commercial customers with demand under 100 KW.

And since Naperville's consultant was the director of the state agency in charge of procuring the supply for those small end users, this bad comparison is inexcusable.

He knows that Naperville would not and could not pay those prices, and this led to misinformation.

His study concluded that IMEA prices have been cost effective for the city, and this is absolutely false.

Luckily, St.

Charles hired a consultant who made reasonable assumptions.

He compared the average electricity price sold by the five largest power brokers in Illinois versus IMEA pricing over the time period 2016 to 2023.

The St.

Charles consultant found that that city paid a premium of 70 million dollars to IMEA over that time period.

Naperville's historic usage is roughly two and a half times that of St.

Charles.

So if we extrapolate those findings, it means that Naperville paid an estimated premium of 176 million dollars during the eight-year time frame.

The truth is we have paid millions more under the IMEA contract, and this overpayment has supported the largest polluter in the state of Illinois.

Thank you for your time and service.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Sharon Gorell, followed by Wendy Schild, Rim Vidas Gilvidus, Greg Hubert.

Next speaker.

Wendy Schild, followed by Rim Vidus Gilvidus, Greg Hubert, and Jack Pye.

Are you Wendy?

I'm Wendy.

I'm Wendy Shield.

Thanks.

Thank you all.

Thank you so much.

You just need to be real close to the microphone for us.

You didn't hear me.

Okay.

My name is Wendy SHIELD.

I'm a Naperville resident.

I've lived here almost 40 years, about 40 years.

And please note my endorsement regarding the need, in my opinion, for the Naperville City Council to renew our membership with the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency, IMEA, now recommended by the city's public utilities advisory board.

I believe the opponents of this prudent step.

Um seem to base their opposition on outdated and probably false information regarding the cost of solar and wind power, since data centers throughout the state and nation are expected to double in the very near future.

Their high use of energy will increase its cost no matter where we live.

To be prepared for AI and all its power-related needs, please open your mind to vote to continue IMEA.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Rimvitus Gilvidis, followed by Greg Hubert, Jack Pye, and Michael Costello.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is uh Dr.

Remus Gilvidus.

I'm a physician, more specifically, uh board-certified vascular and interventional radiologist.

I live and work here in Naperville, and I'm here tonight as a concerned citizen.

We are the first generation to truly feel the impacts of climate change, and we are the last generation with the ability to do something about it.

The science regarding human-caused global warming is unequivocal.

The only resistance comes from misinformation and from those who knowingly see doubt by obscuring the truth, exactly as described in the book, Merchants of Doubt back in 2010.

Fifteen years later, Naperville is still getting 70% of its electricity from coal, the dirtiest and most harmful of all major energy sources.

Why are we in this predicament?

Everyone I know is worried about human-cause global warming.

The science is clear.

Back in 2019, I tried to install 27 kilowatts of solar panels with battery storage on my house.

Instead, I ran into unnecessary barriers.

I was told the maximum system allowed was 9.9 kilowatts, a restriction dating back to 2008.

That outed rule made it impossible to move forward.

Six years later, Naperville is not a leader, but an established laggard when it comes to renewable energy adoption.

What worries me most now is that there are people behind the scenes pushing Naperville to sign a contract extension with IEMA ten years before our current contract even expires.

That is worrisome on two fronts.

First, from a business standpoint, this makes no sense.

Locking us in today, keep getting 70% of our electricity from coal is reckless.

We've heard claims that carbon capture will solve the problem of coal, but this is simply not true.

Carbon capture does not work at commercial scale.

It is enormously costly, and coal ash disposal, full of dangerous toxins, will only become more expensive in the future.

As to this, the very possibility of costly litigation down the road, and you can see how risky and short-sighted this decision will be.

Secondly, from a scientific standpoint, understanding the science is imperative.

If you don't understand how human-cause climate change works, how carbon dioxide and methane trap the sun's energy and heat our planet, then you should not be making decisions of this magnitude.

The science is clear, burning coal is one of the largest drivers of climate change, and it also releases toxins that directly harm human health.

And let me add this.

If there are people in positions of influence who see themselves as representing IMEA's interests, then they should not be part of Naperville's decision-making process.

You cannot represent both IMEA and the citizens of Naperville at the same time.

Those interests are in conflict.

What Naperville needs is objectivity.

Thank you, next speaker.

Greg Hubert, followed by Jack Pye, Michael Costello, and Joseph Kazminski.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council.

My ask tonight is that you explicitly list IMEA socialized costs and IMEA rate schedules as an item on the counter proposal list for IMEA.

The financial viability of the member directed resources option depends on the cost of our Naperville contract with a power provider.

And the financial viability also very much depends on the IMEA billing credits to Naperville and our Naperville share of IMEA socialized costs per the IMEA rate schedules, which have yet to be developed and approved by the IMEA board of directors for MDR.

My senior years heard the IMEA CEO state that the wholesale nuclear power costs are double what IMEA pays for other resources.

And by my calculations, which I have emailed to you earlier tonight, our MDR project would involve over $7.5 million per year in socialized cost shifts when simply evaluating just three of the IMA socialized cost, debt service, prairie state operations and maintenance, and Trimble operations and maintenance.

Please be aware that the IMEA socialized cost accounts are not listed in public IMEA financial statements, and they are not in the IMEA annual budget.

You can only see these socialized cost accounts if you should look at page four of our monthly bills from IMEA.

And you should also be aware that the cost allocation methodology is documented in IMEA rate schedules updated each year based on proposals by IMEA staff and approval by the IMEA board of directors.

IMEA socialized costs are also involved in the resolution of the peak shaving counter proposal.

Naperville consultant Mark Pruitt used the words cross-substubsidization when referring to socialized cost as an important governance matter when forming the new joint action agency.

But unfortunately, the scope of his engagement did not involve reviewing the IMEA socialized costs.

In closing, my ask again is that you please explicitly list the IMEA socialized costs along with the IMEA rate schedules as an item on the counterproposal list for IMEA.

In order for us to evaluate that financial viability of the MDR option, we need to be able to confirm the IMEA board-approved rate schedules with their methodology and formulas for MDR and the enumerated list of the IMEA socialized cost accounts for IME for MDR.

Remember, those are listed nowhere else except on our bill from IMEA on page four.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Jack Pye, followed by Michael Costello, Joseph Kosminski, and Dick Firstonell.

Good evening, Mayor, Council members, and members of the public.

I'm Jack Pye.

I'm a junior at Matea Valley.

And we are told by oppositions of coal that renewable energy is clean and ethical.

But it's the opposite.

In 2021, Illinois passed the Climate and Equitable Jobs Act.

That law set the target for our state to run on 40% wind and solar by 2030, 50% by 2040, and to phase out fossil fuels almost entirely by 2050.

It sounds very clean, but here's the truth.

Wind and solar are not clean by any honest measure.

Solar panels are marketed by a saving the prant.

Yet most never offset the carbon it took to mine, manufacture them, and ship them before they even wear out.

They contain toxic materials that we can't recycle at scale, which means they end up as waste.

That isn't clean.

That's exporting pollution to the next generation.

Wind turbines, same problem.

Manufacturing those enormous blades take huge amounts of fossil fuels.

Transporting them burns thousands of gallons of diesel, and when they fail, the blades aren't recyclable.

They get buried in landfills.

That's the dirty secret behind green energy.

And then we're told energy storage will make renewables reliable.

Yet, right now it's a fantasy.

Even the most advanced batteries can store only a few hours of power.

And those batteries, they're built on lithium and cobalt mining in Africa and South America.

Industries infamous for human right violations, poisoned rivers, and devastated landscapes.

There is nothing ethical about child labor.

And meanwhile, in China, the world's largest polluter, they keep building unregulated coal plants while pouring money into Western media and nonprofits to promote this so-called green agenda.

Why?

Well, because while we cripple our own energy grid, and while we cripple our own energy grid, chasing an illusion, they strengthen their economy and their global influence.

That's not environmentalism, that's manipulation.

This is the reality.

Wind and solar are not clean.

They are not sustainable.

They are not reliable, they are a political slogan dressed up as science, and the price is paid by working families through higher energy bills in weaker communities.

Illinois can pass laws, write lofty goals, but but pretending that unreliable, dirty and imported technologies are the future is not progress.

It's a dangerous gamble with our energy security.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Michael Costello, followed by Joseph Kosminski, and then Dick first and all.

Good evening, Michael Costello, DuPage resident, Naperville resident, degreed power engineer, and I am the counterpart to the PEAB in the private sector.

Wow.

This is a big big decision.

I was in chambers in 07 when the City Council unanimously voted to go with the IMEA.

We seem to be divided now.

If we could only harness the energy that emotions have going on in this room, we wouldn't need any source.

But here's the thing.

Jack said a lot of things.

He missed one thing.

Each of those windmills have 600 gallons of oil in them.

And when a windmill breaks, they stay there dead.

And they kill the birds, too.

There is no magic solution other than a Tesla coil, but we don't get that option.

We have to deal with how do we get our energy.

Along came the IMEA.

We went with it with 25 other communities.

We spent 175 million dollars to build some of that stuff like prairie.

Do I like coal?

No.

Coal's dirty.

I'm a boilerman.

I deal with I deal with a lot of dirty environments.

Coal is awful.

But we don't have a silver lining that says, okay, we can do away with coal.

I'd like to see coal go away.

Maybe AI will figure it out.

They're going to be putting in a data center over here in town.

Talk about a major bump onto our electrical grid, going to consume huge amounts of energy.

What we need is to renew the IMEA so that they can continue to provide us with energy at a cost effect.

If we do not, if we do not, our rates are going to skyrocket.

Period.

Nobody can afford that.

So as a professional, I urge this council to do what the council did in 07.

I think maybe Mr.

Krager was the only one here in this room.

But I've been right off counsel for 25 years involved.

I know every one of you.

I've met the new ones, haven't talked much, but I've had that rapport with every city council member for the last 25 years.

Speaker's time is up.

Next speaker.

Thank you.

Joseph Kazminski, followed by Dick First and all.

Good evening, Councilmembers and Mayor.

My name is Joe Kazminski, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Naperville District 203 School Board.

On August 4th, the school board unanimously passed a position statement opposing renewal of the IMEA contract.

And I've been designated by board leadership to read it into the record this evening.

As a major consumer of electricity provided by the city of Naperville, the Naperville Community Unit School District 203 Board of Education strongly opposes the extension of the City of Naperville's contract with the Illinois Municipal Electricity Agency, IMEA, to 2055.

Climate change has wide-reaching and increasingly harmful impacts locally and across the board, affecting school learning environments and the health and well-being of our current and future students and staff.

As a part of the Focus 203 strategic blueprint, District 203 developed a carbon action plan or CAP with input from staff, students, and the community that sets a goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

This plan was unanimously approved by the Board of Education in March 2025.

The CAP sets two targets, the 2050 net zero goal and an intermediate target of 35 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, when the current IMEA contract is scheduled to end.

Found that 61% of the district's emissions come from purchased energy, electricity, primarily from coal-burning power plants, which account for about 80% of IMEA's power generation.

Due to the IMEA's heavy reliance on fossil fuels, an extension of the IME contract to 2055 would likely make District 203's net zero goal by 2050 unattainable.

The board thus recognizes that it has a responsibility to speak out on this issue that affects the long-term health, sustainability, and educational mission of our school district, which is a major consumer of electricity.

In order to work toward a more sustainable future for students, staff, and community, we strongly oppose a contract extension with IMEA and urge the City of Naperville to explore cleaner and more flexible energy sources that support our CAP.

The board stands with students, families, and community members who are calling for climate action and a sustainable future.

Thank you for your time and for considering alternative options for a cleaner Naperville.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Final speaker is Dick Firstnell.

Good evening, Council.

It's a pleasure to be here.

It's like being coming home.

It's been a while since I've been here.

But I appreciate your service and what you do for the city.

Now I'm going to tell you a little story.

I was here in when we put that IMA contract together.

And I spent a lot of sleepless nights about what we should do.

And you know what?

I came down to a little very simple conclusion.

What's worse?

This coal plant, or when you go to the light switch and switch it up, the lights don't come on.

That is a possibility in Naperville.

You got to have a sustainable power plant that will continue to give you power.

We didn't know what IMEA could do.

They hadn't even built the place yet.

And we bit off on it.

And oh, by the way, I learned a couple things that I I don't know, it was about a year we were playing around with it.

Nuclear power is the cheapest power you can buy.

I'm sorry.

Hydroelectric power from Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Washington, and those states in the far northwest.

That's the cheapest power, but you can't get it from there to here.

The next cheapest power is nuclear power with the big power plants.

Guess what?

I don't know what it was, but they weren't selling it to us.

They said you can't buy that.

That's a fact.

You can ask the guy that's sitting up there.

They would not sell us the power.

So what we ended up with, we bit off on IEMEA, who had a pretty good story, who had a decent past.

We figured they could build the power plant.

We didn't know they could build it in time.

That was part of the problem.

Well, you know what?

They got it built.

And you know what?

We haven't had a blackout in this town.

We haven't had a brownout.

We haven't had rolling blackouts.

Nobody's asked us to turn our light switches off or quit running our TVs.

The power is there.

And that's you're better to have the power than to know power at all.

You can't live without electric power in today's world.

And I know that there is a real and back in the day, even nuclear power, they were afraid that things were going to melt down and you'd end up killing everybody within a hundred thousand miles of the place.

It wasn't.

They hadn't figured out all the safety issues with nuclear power at that point in time.

We were still having problems in the country.

So we we bought from IEMEA, who turned out to be pretty reasonable people and supplied the power.

And I would say thank you.

Thank you.

You bet.

Any more speakers.

No more speakers.

We're going to take a seven minute break.

We will be back at nine twelve.

It's nine twelve, we're gonna go ahead and get started.

Could somebody in the back there please close the the back door, please?

Thank you.

Item L two.

L two pass the ordinance authorizing the execution of a new power sales contract with the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency for the delivery period commencing October one, twenty thirty-five.

Councilman White might have a motion on L to Mayor, point of order.

Councilman, I understand that um there is a a motion that you're planning to bring on this item.

Then that becomes a motion of substitution with without the ability for amendment or either true council comment on it.

Point taken.

So I'll entertain a motion on L two.

Councilman White.

Mayor move to pass the ordinance authorizing the execution of a new power sales contract with the Illinois municipal electric agency for the delivery period committing October first, twenty thirty-five.

Second Kelly.

And number two, direct staff to issue a request for proposals for carbon-free electric supply options that may potentially be used as member directed resources.

Is there a second?

Second agreement.

Council McBroun.

So we have a motion on a second on the motion for substitution.

There's been a lot of activity that's that's taken place over the last three years and especially in the last seven days.

There's one thing that's for sure.

Every one of you in this room would like to see.

Rejecting an offer on the IMEA early proposal for a renewal and not engaging in negotiation assures 10 years of things as they are today.

That is for sure.

Additionally, power marketing procurement processes that have been discussed earlier tonight.

Well, if you've got a 10-year contract, it's really hard to go out for a procurement when the potential vendors might be interfering with an existing contract.

So those questions might be appropriate more for a 2030 discussion when we could be giving notice that we would potentially be terminating our contract with IAMEA in 2035.

But right now, I don't think they're really practical.

In the motion as well as the document that I sent out to the City Council and after hearing back and forth from all sorts of different folks and quite honestly, looking back at the tapes, reading the contracts again.

There's a lot of different provisions that we've added here as this contract was originally proposed to where we are right now.

Number one, in contract length, it allows an exit in 2045, 10 years earlier than the proposed renewal.

Member directed resources, potentially allow for up to 20 percent of capacity or what equivalent numbers for energy consumption would be 50 percent of energy consumption, and the option to sign purchase power agreements for a wide variety of carbon-free resources, including existing nuclear energy almost immediately if approved by IMEA, and we have appropriate power purchase agreements that can pair up with this when it comes back to council later on.

There's carbon-free milestones.

If IMEA fails to meet their self-imposed carbon-free milestones, there's real penalties, and they allow the city to have the right to increase its member directed resource allocation by a percentage equal to their shortfall.

There's peak shaving.

It allows Naperville to install peak shaving technology, and we shall be compensated based on market value for the resource it utilizes.

Local generation rights, which are of concern to many of us in the room to make sure that our residents and our schools and our churches and businesses can continue to supply their own energy.

And it also asks that the city be clarified for our existing and future city-owned facilities to be included in the MDR provisions.

Voting rights, we're looking for the weighted voting system to be implemented for the resource planning portions that the IMEA has.

We want to see Naperville's share of fuel debt service operations and maintenance costs for both Prairie State and Triple County as allowed by Federal and State Laws and market regulations.

And the source and quantity of all energy procured for the agency shall also be provided on an annual basis.

Retirement costs.

This is a very big one that's come up in lots of testimony over the last several months.

IA shall continue to collect its share of retirement costs for Prairie State and Triple County, such that they are outlined in each facility's decommissioning report and are collected by their state retire state mandated retirement dates.

That's that's some uh very important thing for us.

And MDR costs, the city shall issue a bid request for proposal for carbon-free energy options which conform to the member directed re uh resource standards in the proposed IMA contract, including existing nuclear technology.

So what we're looking at with this proposal is to ask council to authorize our professional staff to negotiate with IMEA to get these terms, and at the same time, authorize us to go out for requests for uh proposals from power providers to give us proposals on clean energy options.

And when all those things are completed, they would come back to the city council for consideration, additional questions, additional hearing, and a final vote.

So that is the motionless substitution on the table.

Members of council, I look forward to your input.

Councilman Holzauer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, one of the things I think you and I talked about on the phone of socialized this with other members was adding one additional point on here, which would be a cap of the city's coal power usage, uh, which in the QA I asked of staff, uh they said it would be about 502 megawatt hours would be the expected daily use.

Um so I would ask that that be an additional term, and I was wondering if I could perhaps see a show of hands to see if we could get that added as an additional term.

Is there a show of hands to support Councilman Holzauer's cap on coal?

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Councilman White asked me what that is, and I I just wanted to say it, you know, if you didn't get a chance to see the QA.

Um under the mayor's proposal here, um the amount of coal used based on current city usage would drop to 592 megawatt hours a day, which to your credit is a substantial savings.

Um of the concerns I have is if we approve things like data centers, um, that's adding the equivalent of tens of thousands of new households worth of users basically the coal usage climbs back to a lot higher, potentially even where it is right now, or or be even using more coal in the future.

So my proposal would be we cap uh that coal usage at the 592 megawatt hours that uh that we would achieve under this proposal, anything beyond that would have to be purchased through uh through an MDR through nuclear, something like that.

So basically we could say, hey, we know we are not going to be emitting more coal emissions than this amount, you know, in any year going forward.

Does that make sense, Councilman?

And just to clarify, Councilman uh Holzar, that would be for all customers, not just commercial users or or data centers.

Right, so I wouldn't be singling out any one user, it would be the city as a whole's purchase would never be for more than 592 megawatt hours of okay.

So all customers going forward after that cap would have to be uh um so I I don't think I would single out any individual customer.

And I see uh uh Council DeSanto nodding.

I talked to Mr.

Kruger about it.

I wouldn't single out any individual user.

Um it would be the city as a whole, it's its MDR percentage it's it's taking would just increase in a year where it happens to grow.

By the way, this could go the other direction.

The city's to its credit had a lot of admirable reductions in power consumption.

We may actually not hit the cap depending on you know what we are, but that's that's the proposal I have, and and just laying my cards on the table.

Um there's a lot that I have to swallow to get to yes on this, but I can get to yes if I can get that on there.

Okay.

Councilman Holzauer, do you have a uh I'm sorry, could Councilman Kelly do you have a clarification for Councilman Holzar's question?

Okay, I have a point of order.

Councilwoman Gibson?

Uh yeah, point of order.

If um we put hands in the hair and get air and get consensus for this, would it be formally typed up and added to this list?

Or would we have to amend the motion and substitution to include that?

Counselor, do you want to uh the only way that the motion and substitution can be changed is if the original proposer agrees to it.

So council could all raise their hands, but the mayor would have to accept that and amend his motion, and then the second would have to amend the motion and substitution, but it's possible if everyone were to agree that so would the mayor would agree to it.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Councilman uh Councilman Wilson, do you have a question related to this?

I I do.

Go ahead.

Um so to your question, is this going like for instance?

If we had to go out to bid to make up the energy for this every year, every three years and pay a premium.

Um, because this would be load fouling.

Um but the energy is not actually likely to become projected going forward due to the overall citywide uh decline in energy usage.

Uh so is it would do you have a resolution for that, I guess is my question.

Uh can you be a little more specific about your question, like a resolution meaning, sorry like how are you gonna handle that?

How are you gonna handle that?

Okay, so uh I I thought I heard the answer in your question, actually.

So if your question is so if we go out to bid for this, are you going to add any thing around the cost for that, or do you or is there no concern for that?

I mean, so I I think there's six of one half dozen of another, right?

I mean, if we take on, let's say a data center that's gonna use 72 megawatt hours, even if we're 100% sourcing from IMEA, they don't have that capability right now, right?

They're gonna have to go out, negotiate, figure something out, possibly charge a penalty.

Um, and yes, if we're getting nuclear for MDR or something like that, we'll have the same issue with them, but I uh I don't see the issue as being worse one way or the other.

Councilman Kelly, do you have a question to clarify for Councilman Holzer?

Your lights on.

I don't I'm thinking no, right now I'm okay, thank you.

You're burning power over there.

All right.

Um let's uh show of uh uh show of hands in that would be in support of uh Councilman Holzauer's request for um uh a change to the motion of substitution.

Okay, I I see four or five hands?

Okay.

Six hands.

Councilman, one thing that I um I I think would address the concern about potentially um significant price increases for all of our customers.

Um perhaps we could get to somewhere where councilwoman Gibson and I were earlier today, and that would be to carve out what we would call the um the true mega users, and require a user over a certain size to have to go to uh additional MDR and ask that beyond the MDR request on the table right now, which would be the 20 percent.

So take for instance there's been mention of a data center.

Um require a data center, which is a a significant user to go 100 percent clean energy, and not carve into the existing MDR numbers that we have, but add to the MDR for those mega projects.

Would that be a reasonable?

So I appreciate that, Mayor.

I heard that from staff and from councilwoman Gibson um and actually Nest, so numerous people brought it up.

Um there's a very specific reason I I phrase this with a cap of 592 megawatt hours.

And the concern is I I understand we have to draw a line and somewhat arbitrary about who's large enough to to qualify for that program.

I mean, one number that was thrown out, I don't know if this is your number, but a number that was thrown out was 30 megawatts.

I mean, that's a huge user, right?

I mean, you could be the equivalent of something like 55,000 cars, you know, worth of CO2 a year and still be under that.

So I'm um I think it's a much better principle for the city to just say, hey, we have a cap, we're not gonna burn more coal than this.

I think that's something the audience can understand.

Um swallowing a lot of desire to uh to just competitively bid this, go to PPAs.

Um but I think I can get to a yes if if what the six voted for is is one of the principles.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'll have more comments later, but we boy, we jumped right into the weeds, deep into the weeds right off the bat here on this one specific point.

Um and I guess my thought is I I'm thinking about the comment you made when you got to the end of the list that you presented, which was I I think if I heard it right, which was that staff would be uh enabled to negotiate if they were successful, something would come back to council to then vote on at a future date, the public would consider it in the interim, council would consider it in the interim.

Um and so what I'm hearing, I I'm hearing what Councilman Holzhauer's you know said loud and clear, which is it's a lot to swallow, and I think that's true.

Um I think we probably all agree on what the issue is.

I I I I agree anyways, I'll say for myself, I agree with Councilman Holzhauer as to the potential problem there.

Um and I'm wondering if there's some way to uh basically to give our staff some leeway to work on that.

I mean, this is all very new, right, in the last many days, literally.

Um and so if uh we had six hands in the air for what councilman Holzhauer said, uh uh, you know, a strong consensus.

But I saw the mayor did not put his hand in the air, and councilman uh council DeSanto said we need the person who made the motion to agree to it to amend it tonight.

Um so I I see that not happening, but I wonder if there's another version of it that would provide a little bit of leeway to try to solve for that particular problem in a way that when we come back in the future, you know, it might work, it might not, but it would give us some ability to try to tackle that problem.

Yes, and my response at this point would be if we put the coal cap on for all customers, and then those PPAs come back at a later time beyond that coal cap, and the markets are completely messed up.

Now our residents and our small businesses and every other current utility customer isn't going to have any choice in the matter.

We're going to have to lay out those costs at whatever they are to those customers, and they're going to have to pay it.

That's the line in the sand proposal, as I'm understanding it, councilman.

And what concerns me is I mean, we we just had a half hour ago conversations about people not being able to afford groceries, and I hear every day about how people can't afford their taxes and their utility bills in this community and how we need affordable housing.

So to do something that would potentially put our residents and our businesses at risk.

But to draw that line in the sand and hope that the power markets play nice with us down the road.

I don't think I want to pass that along to forward councils who are gonna have to deal with that.

Councilman McBroom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I assume we're we're talking about 2035 through 2038.

So three years after our contract is over, there's a 50 percent reduction in carbon mandated by law.

Four years later, the coal plant shut down.

So uh this conversation about coal caps, uh, I mean, I guess we're talking about a limited window there.

We're not talking about forever.

I'm just making the point that it sounds like we're having a conversation between coal and clean energy, and the state's already made that decision for us.

Okay, Councilman Alzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just for you know, um understanding um would you be amenable to uh a relatively um low limit where people are having to go to MDR.

So if any business comes to town that wants three megawatts, is that sufficient?

I mean, that's still a heck of a lot of power compared to what residential users are using.

I would agree to data centers or uh something north of um uh 30 megawatts, I think is is absolutely fair.

Where we get into some concerns about legality, I think it would be we start punishing new businesses that come to Naperville and say, okay, this is your rate plan, and since you've been here a while, then you you get a better rate plan.

And right now we have our top 10 customers.

I mean, I think our highest is 12 megawatts, which is a very significant employer in our community.

And I I would hate to see a situation where we we forced them into a situation that they never anticipated and we never anticipated because we were trying to only do something for new businesses.

So council, can you clarify some of the discriminatory concerns that you expressed prior?

Really, Mayor, I think I'd have to do more research, and I'd like to advise council on that uh separately.

Um but you know, just the idea of um uh kind of deviating from our our standard billing policies, I think could be a concern for us.

It may be something that we can deal with through potentially with zoning or our agreements.

If any type of large operator were to come in the city, we would prefer maybe to negotiate it through an agreement as part of the entitlements process.

Um that may be an option, but again, there's more work that needs to be done on it, but there are some legal concerns that we would have to uh further analyze.

Thank you.

Councilman Holzar, you follow up.

I'll sure it it sounds like you're not amenable to taking the direction of six council members.

Um, so I'll just make my comments while I'm voting no.

Um members of the community, you are our bosses, and it's our job to have your backs.

You've been clear about your priorities, which are affordability and burning less coal.

Um several members of our uh council met last week and uh came up with a plan that's now before you.

Um when I heard about this meeting, I had questions.

Um we have the ability to ask written questions of our staff members in advance of the meeting, and so I asked this question about the proposal.

What would the city's coal usage be if this proposal were to be adopted?

And as you heard earlier, it'd be 592 megawatts of coal-fired energy would be generated on behalf of Naperville each day.

That's the compromise that was being considered by a small group behind closed doors.

While this first draft proposal is a useful first step, it leaves out one glaring item, which is a cap on the amount of coal used.

To state that differently, an additional term should be added.

Without a cap, we get potentially the worst of all worlds, which is higher rates and burning even more coal once data centers arrive.

For those of you who aren't aware, a single set data center, once complete, can consume as much power as 60,000 residents.

And if the I-88 corridor is developed with multiple data centers, our coal usage will blast through the 592 megawatt hour target.

And indeed, our coal usage could be even greater in the future than it is today.

My vote depends on a hard cap on coal.

Any new power use beyond that must be nuclear or different carbon-free source.

Paying more for power and burning more coal is the worst of all worlds, and I'm a hard no on that.

This proposal is one day old in the public consciousness.

It should not be rushed forward, and particularly um with the gravity of the consequences at hand.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I think this addendum's a step in the right direction.

I'm grateful to everybody who's spent so much time over the last two days, week, um, but also more importantly, six months a year, how long we've had this extension out.

I know there's a lot of members of our community who have poured over every detail of this contract and um have learned more about power generation than they probably ever thought they would.

Um I think this conversation tonight actually shows why this is voting on this is a little premature.

I think it would have been appropriate as a new business item.

Um, like I said, these are steps in the right direction.

I would like to see staff negotiating with these, but I'm not comfortable putting my staff of approval on this amendment.

Um, there's too many unanswered questions, um, too much vagueness.

Um for me, I don't think the community has had proper time to weigh in on this.

Um, it was posted just over 24 hours ago.

I believe IMEA saw this sooner than most members of our community.

Um, and I have a problem with that.

Um, I understand that us voting for this shows IMEA that we are willing to negotiate in good faith.

I don't think that changes.

I think if staff can work to get some concrete hard numbers on these, and we've had time to evaluate them, then um maybe there is a path forward here.

Um, but I wasn't elected to represent IMEA.

I was elected to represent our community, and I think they deserve more time to look through this amendment.

Okay, councilman, or I'm sorry, Councilman Kelly.

Councilman Kelly.

All right, thank you, Mayor.

Um, a lot of thoughts tonight.

It's been a very long road.

Uh certainly over the past year for for myself, it's been something I've been looking at for probably seven years now.

It's probably the first issue I really dug into when I first ran for council about seven years ago.

Um, you know, my my first job out of law school as an environmental energy lawyer.

That's that's why I went to school is to try to help with issues like these.

Um and it was the first issue I really cared deeply about within the city, and I've been working on it for years ever since.

Thank you to everybody who showed up tonight, and and like Councilwoman Gibson said, we've been working on this for some of you for a few weeks, some for a few months, some for many, many years.

Um it's been a long road to get here.

And my view uh pretty much most of the most of those seven years.

Well, I'll say when I when I first looked at it seven years ago, I had questions very initially of this contract is is pretty pretty difficult.

Is there any way we can change it, get out of it?

Met with other attorneys who had worked on this contract specifically for the city, and they said no, this is an ironclad contract, it runs till 2035.

That's it, no if, ands, or buts about it.

You're you're stuck with it.

Um, and that's been the case ever since.

When IMEA came to us with the renewal um, you know, over a year ago now.

I asked consistently to city staff, is there any room to work on this?

Can we negotiate?

Will I mean talk to us?

Will they increase MDR, do other things?

And was told consistently no.

Um, so in light of that answer, I was always very comfortable thinking that we should not renew.

Um to me, uh it's the we've heard it many times here in other cities, St.

Charles and Winneco, when ECA had a they they really favored the analogy of the three-legged chair, um, which is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about sustainability, cost, and reliability.

Uh those are really the three fundamentals of our electricity.

And the way I view it is that two of those three are fairly neutral in terms of evaluating our options.

What should we do?

Should we renew or should we not?

For my and some might disagree, but for my perspective, cost is basically a net neutral because we just flat out don't know on either one of them.

We don't know with certainty what IMEA would charge starting in 25, 2035.

Uh, and we don't know with certainty what an alternative provider, a power marketer or anybody else.

It's too early to give a bid, they've told us that we just can't really know.

We can look back and make guesses, everybody can make predictions about where the energy markets are heading, but extremely difficult to say with certainty.

Um reliability from my perspective is a wash, and I've spent a lot of time talking with staff about that.

And uh I former councilman First Now, I I hear you on that that you got to keep the lights on.

It's critical, but my understanding from talking to staff, it really is not our contract with IMEA or whoever the power marketer might be that keeps the lights on.

It's really the job of our city's electric utility and PJM.

That's what keeps the lights on.

And I asked the question specifically of staff, does it matter?

Uh say compare Naperville versus Lyle, a Comed City versus Naperville with IMEA.

There's no doubt there's strains on demand, huge power, you know, uh data centers coming in.

There could be strains on on the grid.

And I asked the question if there are sta strains on the grid.

Uh, would it ever be the case because we procure our energy from IEA and Lyle provides procures it from COMED?

Would our lights go off, or I'm sorry, would Lyle's lights go off before ours would, and the answer is no.

It's handled by PJM who operates the grid.

It does not matter where you buy your electrons from.

And our city's utility does a fantastic job of keeping the lights on in storms, getting power back up.

We have a far better rate than combat in that regard, but that's a city issue, um, not it not an IMEA issue.

So for me, it comes down in large part to the sustainability question.

And there we're very different, clearly.

Uh Naperville is very heavy coal, the rest of the state is not, and the rest of the country is not.

So that that's a huge difference.

And without IMEA being willing to negotiate on that MDR clause, which is the answer I was always given, including up through last Tuesday, I was told they would not negotiate.

Um I said, okay, well, then I'm comfortable not renewing.

Uh now very recently, I think I heard it for the first time on Thursday.

Uh the situation changed, and IMEA is seemingly hope you think and hope, uh, willing to come to the table and maybe negotiate in good faith with us if we're willing to do the same.

Uh and and as the mayor said, it would move up our ability to change the source of our power very significantly by a significant number of years and by a significant percentage, where right now we're about 10% uh carbon free.

We could by the end of the year potentially be up to 60% if we execute it on a 20% peak MDR, an increase of 50% within a few months, and then maybe another 10% on that after a year, year and a half uh with a with the B.

Hollow plan.

So we could, in theory, in the next year, year and a half be up to 70% carbon-free, where today we're sitting at 10.

Um, and to me, that is something that is really truly worth considering.

Um, the way I look at it, my background and and my thoughts on climate change or that climate change is a serious problem and it's a serious problem today.

It's not a problem that's gonna start 10 years from now that we should be looking at thinking about what can we do about it 10 years from today if we have an opportunity to do something about it today.

I think we've got to seriously consider that that opportunity.

Now it comes with a lot of questions.

Um, you know, these are not final fully fleshed out points, but I think uh a lot of critical points that go beyond MDR.

Transparency, voting rights, and voting rights is something that's very significant.

Um especially if it's gonna be a weighted system for uh for resource planning.

That's something we've never had where we would actually have the percentage that we use of the power to give input on that particular topic.

Um we've got work to do, I think, on all those items, in particular the MDR back to that focus.

My opportunity and concern is uh the opportunity is that we can reduce our carbon emissions drastically very soon.

But my concern is we don't know who would provide it, we don't know what it would cost, and we don't know most critically if this council would uh vote to approve it.

Um what I was happy to hear from the mayor is that we will uh bring this back to the council if we move forward with this negotiation authority and decide if council wants to do it or not.

For me personally, I can state unequivocally if the council is not willing or able to execute on the MDR contract, I would not be willing to vote to renew with IMEA.

Um I that's my red line in the sand.

The if the attractive portion of this addendum is increasing the MDR, reducing our carbon footprint, we need to know that would happen.

Um so my thought is we can take a breath, we don't take a final vote tonight.

Uh we give the public time to fully vet and weigh in on the next steps.

Maybe the most critical thing at the very bottom of the screen for anybody who can see it right now is where it says the city staff shall issue a bid/slash request for proposal.

That's probably the thing I've heard more commonly than anything else from residents is we should issue an RFP.

And this would not be for 100% of our power, but it would be for about 50% of our power starting tomorrow, and that is a very valuable thing.

We don't know what the result would be, but to have an RFP issued where we otherwise don't have a chance for 10 years, uh, I think it's something that we really need to uh explore fully.

It would give the city a chance to cut uh to meet our carbon goals, the school district a chance to meet their carbon goals when they otherwise probably wouldn't.

Um, and so I I appreciate the work of everybody on council, the mayor, all the council members who worked hard, a lot of phone calls the last few days, nest other members in the community.

I hope we can continue doing that work.

Um, and so for those reasons, I will I will support the motion.

I do hope that we can add one bullet point that would give the city staff flexibility to negotiate on the general concept of future large users uh if the mayor would be willing to include that additional point in his motion, and that could be a flexible range of options.

I don't even know what they are.

I've heard from Mr.

DeSanto, he's got to do the research.

We don't even know.

We're throwing numbers out about three per three or thirty.

I have no idea what that right number is, but I'd like to find out if that could be included.

So thank you.

I I'd be fine with adding that, councilman.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Longam Bow.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I wanted to thank all the speakers who came out tonight, especially all the students.

I know it can be super scary being on that side speaking in front of such a big group, but it's really good practice for later.

And so I really appreciate you all being here.

Um I also want to thank all the people who have been emailing and voicemails.

I've been trying to respond to all of them.

I'm a little behind right now, but um really thank you for for all of the emails.

I've learned quite a lot from some of the attachments that you've that you've sent and the links, and so I really appreciate it.

Um here's how I see it.

And and I echo a lot of what um councilman Kelly said.

Um there's been a ton of work going on behind the scenes about this.

And what I see, what you see on the screen right now is the culmination of a lot of discussions between staff and council and the mayor and nest and community partners, like so many conversations to get to this.

And this is I think this is excellent.

I think this is this is a bridge between both sides.

Um, it gets us to closer to renewables now than in 10 years.

Like, regardless of what, well, if if we say no to IMEA, we're stuck with IMEA for the next 10 years.

We will never see this close to renewables for another 10 years.

And I see this as a compromise between the two sides and a and a bridge.

And so I I like it.

I think it's um it not only does that, but it also allows, you know, if if we go forward with it, it would allow staff to continue to benefit from IMEA's um, you know, administrative abilities.

I mean, that that is a a huge benefit, I think, to the city.

Um and I like that it protects us from a lot of the gray areas in the contract right now.

There are things in there that there have been a lot of questions from you all, not knowing what is going on behind the scenes, and I think this really tries to address that.

Um I do like what Councilman Kelly just said um about the the data centers about or about large users, and I kind of thought that that was what Councilman Holzhauer was trying to get at with putting a cap or with data centers, and I might have um you know misunderstood that, but I do like having kind of a you know, like bring your own energy type concept for data centers, and if it's something that we know that they're going to be contributing a lot, then maybe we have to have them you know kick in a five percent MDR or something, something like that.

I don't know what that would look like, but I do kind of like that bring your own energy concept, which is I think what what you're trying to get at that.

So um I do support this.

I think it's a good first step.

Um, and you know, I'd like to hear you know comments from everybody about it, so I will be supporting it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

Nipperville community, thank you so much for being here today.

Speaking, engaging, and I see your passion.

I see your commitment.

You care about Napolewell, you care about Naperville future.

Future generation.

And I also wanted to give a shout out to all the youth who came who spoke.

And they have a passion.

And they're worried, they're concerned about their future generation.

And further.

I have received hundreds of emails in the last two months.

I met hundreds of community members, youth, everybody talking about IMEA contract.

So out of ten, nine people said Ashback.

If you are signing for a contract as it is, uh, we are not going to support.

We are not going to support this contract at all.

So I agreed on that.

You are the people who have elected me.

You are the people who made me city council member to represent you, not IMEA.

I'm not working for IMEA.

I'm not going to work for them.

I'm going to work for you.

I'm going to listen to you as a community member.

100%.

What the community needs, we need to accept that.

You have the power.

You you can dictate us.

IMEA cannot dictate us.

And for the last two years, I've been hearing about IMEA.

Dictating.

Ruling us.

A lot of harsh words I can use, but I don't want to use those.

But please, my recommendation is to follow the community because they are the people.

And it helps us as well as city.

I'm really concerned about a lot of things, but in the last 48 hours, things have changed.

We spoke as a city council members.

Mayors multiple times in the last seven days, 48 hours till morning.

I was out of town.

I have been on call with mayor.

I've been on call with city council members.

We have spent so much time.

And today we we look good on what mayor has presented right now, but definitely we need time.

In 24 hours, we cannot take a decision for a two billion dollar contract.

I cannot take it.

If you want to take, yes.

Maybe people can take it.

I cannot take it.

So definitely I would like to support this, what the mayor has proposed.

And Ian, I I like the idea about having a cap so that definitely we may have some culprits who would like to use more energy, and we can have a some some cap or some some condition so that you know we can keep a tap of those things.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, man.

Councilman Wilson.

So I I'm a way zone for the with the PAB board.

Um I uh say it in many of the meetings, listen to the uh uh consultants speak.

On on that note, I did have a question for Director Gross.

Um heard a few people ask about the consultants, CS and Pruitt that came and spoke.

Uh we did issue RFPs for those.

Is that correct?

Mr.

Grove.

Uh Councilman, we issued an RFP for the customized energy solutions consultant.

Okay.

Um how many responses did we get back for that?

I believe we received one.

Could you confirm, Director Munch?

I believe that's correct.

I have to go back and check definitively from CS.

That's correct.

So, like I I'm just asking because I've heard heard a few other folks mentioned uh the the gentleman who spoke to St.

Charles and presumably he didn't bid on ours.

Um, nor did anyone else.

Um so I I only bring that up because I've heard talk of bias with uh the consultants used or whatever.

Um I guess I I just also had uh just comment with overall with how we've seen this contract unravel, I guess in particular.

Um I shouldn't say unravel, just be presented.

We have the 10 percent have the 10 percent in MDR.

I said with this option, we'd have more.

Um people wanted more renewable.

That'd be what we're getting.

I guess uh, you know, if you contrast that with you know, District 203's out here, for example.

Um their goal if I have this right, is uh a reduction by thir of 35 percent by 2035, starting from the year 2018 as the base year.

So not entirely sure what that 2535 target is.

But uh regardless, with the original contract presented, um the carbon here would be less than the alternative of not signing it by 2050.

So I I mean it it would seem like one would ought to support it if you're rather than ask not to, um, from my perspective, logically.

Um but I mean I I've you know I've I've talked about the concerns of the citizens for some time now, and um particularly the more disadvantaged uh residents.

Um just very little I think is brought up about that, and quite frankly, it's just disconcerning to me.

Um continue to see young adults not being able to buy homes because they can't afford them.

And people here seem don't seem to care about it.

Uh it's it's quite just bewildering to me, considering the the uh amount of income of the people here uh with just like I said, it's little concerned with the impact of rising energy prices uh that that would do to them.

Um so I mean I I would have been in full support of the original proposing proposal, um, and then with this addition, and people seemingly want need or want, I guess you could say, to get to to reduce carbon and the other um issues around that.

I would think it would appease you, but that's just me.

So um yeah, these are my comments on it.

I would support it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman White.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Uh, the um first of all, thank you for everyone who came out here.

Uh whether either side of the issue you're on, the fact that you're here tells me you're passionate about the issue, and uh you should be commended for that.

I mean, that's what makes this community special is we have a lot of passionate people who care about um things that happen here uh in Naperville.

So uh thank you for that.

Uh especially the uh the young uh the students that came out.

Um you all are gonna be up here at some point getting to make these decisions, and I think the fact that you're here doing it uh is uh is exceptional.

Uh I like um I'm looking at you know what what's been presented, and uh this didn't happen by accident.

It took a lot of hard work.

I'm a lot of folks.

And things that you have been saying for years, I see embedded in what I'm looking at here.

And so I don't know.

I think the mayor even said he spoke to several people.

And this is not something he came up with on his own.

This is the input that came from many of the people who came out here and spoke today.

So I'd like to uh congratulate you all for that.

I do have a question before I go.

We're a lot of discussion about data centers and so on.

But uh are do we have any type of provision that if a data center or company wants to come in, can they negotiate for their own energy with uh with a with their own with uh a provider of their choice?

Director growth.

Currently today, no, they do not.

Is that something maybe we should consider?

I mean, we talked about adding the you know the data center provision in there, but it should we give them the option of if they find a cheaper way of doing it to do it themselves?

Director.

I think that was considered before with the previous motion or the previous discussion about you know some legal concerns around doing that and requiring them to have a different energy mix and potentially a different price structure than others.

So I I would defer to I I think the councilman is asking if if we should allow for the data centers to go on their own outside of us, the utility to procure their power directly.

Is that was that your question, Councilman?

Uh thank you.

Um currently the City of Naperville has an exclusive right to serve, right?

And so under state law, we have the right and the responsibility to serve all of our customers within municipal territory.

So I would say that it would be in our best interest to not give up that right.

Okay.

Mr.

Krieger.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, data centers are coming in a lot of places, and we've asked them how they've been handling this because there are there are actually several data centers who uh some operate uh you know 100 percent uh clean power, and the way they've been dealing with it in other areas of the nation is through the purchase of renewable energy credits.

Uh and that is something that would be allowed um by the city of Naperville.

Okay.

Uh and not to get off topic, but as we as been a lot of discussions about data centers, uh, and I I get what they do.

Uh but I'm a little I know I guess would like to ask the question what what really are they providing to the city of Naperville?

Because it's not like they're they're employing a lot of people, they're using a lot of the energy and so on.

So uh maybe a discussion for another day to discuss the benefits of having or the disadvantages of having uh um the the data center.

Um the one thing uh as I look at uh all the different things that's proposed here, uh a lot of good stuff as a as I said before, but I don't see is a lot of uh objective criteria.

What's going to define a lot of these things?

I think that's the part that for me that's missing in some cases.

Um I would like to see if we're looking at our MDRs, could we potentially have those approved?

We put out we we go through the process of doing an RFP, we uh let these uh part of that RFP shows what we're looking for from an energy perspective, and maybe that goes along with some of the objectives that we're talking about in the action plans, but we can do that with that 20 percent.

But I would like to see that codified before we would sign anything with IMEA that that way we know we're what what we're getting, and we potentially as uh Councilman Kelly said potentially can get this up to 70 70 percent renewables for Naperville within the next year or so.

So I think that's becomes uh a big piece for us to consider as we go forward.

Um again, yeah, before we sign anything.

I think Mr.

Hubert had some great points as well.

A lot of folks did, but uh his concern about um the social make sure we're defining that socialized cost and the uh the rate schedule for the community.

Uh I like to see those types of metrics put in uh to here.

So um I'm um for me this I'm not we're not signing anything right now.

We're allowing staff to go out and continue to bring these things forward and negotiate with IMEA, but I think we need to codify what we want staff to come up with uh so they can bring it back and uh in in a suspense.

What uh how long do we plan on doing this?

I mean, this could go for could we get this done within the next month or two, or are we talking about another year?

And then all of a sudden new councils are coming on and all that.

I don't I don't want to do that.

So uh let's define the parameters from a timeline standpoint.

When should staff come back based off of what our uh IMEA has said, and then maybe we can go from there.

I don't know what if they come back with a counter proposal on some of these items.

And then we're we're the discussions can continue and we need to be prepared for that.

But uh I like to see that those parameters presented so that uh we're not just kind of dragging us down the uh down the line.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman Councilman McBroom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I'm largely uh supportive of this effort.

Um, when I read through these things, um these are all things that you know when we say IMEA, we're talking about 30 other towns and and us.

We we we are the vice chair of the board.

Um, you know, it sounds like we're on a used car lot and we can't trust these people, and we need to put things in writing in blood.

Um so I I get that.

I understand what this is now.

We don't necessarily trust these largely small town people who maybe we're smarter than them.

Um, so if if if these things need to be uh put in uh writing, fine.

The the concern I have here, and this whole debate has been framed on distrust and deception, that we can't trust the people that we're talking to, whether they're consultants or our city staff, um, that I don't know if I can trust this agreement because with this MDR and what Councilman Kelly just mentioned.

Well, we have to wait to get the pricing on the PPA, and what if the price is too high?

Well, nobody wants to hear it, but coal is the cheapest right now.

Nobody wants to hear it.

You're gonna go out and get a PPA.

My understanding is nuclear may not be too far off.

You are going to raise people's utility prices, and that's fine.

We all voted for that.

Okay.

We want clean energy, it's gonna be higher prices, and yes, it's gonna be unfortunate for single mothers and um you know people on and with lower incomes.

Uh, I don't that's that's the situation we're in.

So I don't want to be in a situation where I say, hey, let's go negotiate, and then three months later we get pricing on PPA and um, oh, it's too much.

Uh that's proof that we have to go into uh go talk to to for-profit power marketers.

Um but you know some of the misinformation that's out there.

I'm gonna I'm I've gone in circles with people.

Um, you know, we we're not getting an unsolicited bid.

Um, you know, why are we doing this 10 years early?

Where there's a law called CEJA, okay.

There's a seismic shift to renewables, our partners need to plan solar and wind contracts are 20 years, whatever.

It's a circular conversation.

I respect what the mayor is doing here.

I think he needs to get a lot of credit for the work that he's put together.

Um he probably has a little more grace than I do.

Um, but he understands the reality.

Um, and I think that there's a chance that we all walk away from this uh being a little bit unhappy about everything, but but we all maybe can get uh just about every enough of what we want to make a deal.

And and I think that would be great if if the mayor can work and and we can negotiate.

Assuming IMEA doesn't tell us to pound sand, they might.

I might if that I was them after hearing what some people up here on the dias have been have been saying about them, but we'll we'll see.

I would hope that they want us uh involved for bond ratings and political influence and things.

There's some reasons they they would want us.

So um I appreciate what the mayor is doing here.

I'm gonna be supportive of it.

I'm gonna say my piece here on a couple things that have bothered me in this process, and I'm gonna talk about NES.

Okay.

I think the behavior of the leadership of NEST has been unprofessional.

I think it's been disrespectful to our staff at the city.

I think you've been overtly political, the leadership, okay, and you're operating under a city banner that gives you credibility.

At the PUAB meeting in A on April 8th, two of the leaders in Nest brought up politics twice, implying that they won an election here.

They even quoted Councilman Gibson, reminded her of some things that she said in her campaign.

I don't know, to maybe remind her where her loyalties are.

They sent a message that they won an election.

Okay.

Fast forward to this discussion that nobody wanted to have that I had to push.

Because I think that the professional thing to do is to let our partners know if we're in or out instead of ignoring them.

An op ed was written in in the sun in July by NEST that accused our city staff of rigging the CES selection process in the and the recommendation.

Accuse our staff of engaging in illegal.

I don't think you've been acting in good faith.

And if it was up to me, which by the way, the amount of hours that our staff can uh you you take from them and they do it respectfully and they drop everything they're doing and the hours and hours while while you're accusing them of being nefarious criminals.

Councilman, you gotta wrap this up, please so we can I'm almost done.

Okay.

I'm almost done.

Councilman.

Hey.

Yes, it's been really rude.

And if it was up to me, you'd be stripped of your uh task force status.

Councilman City, and at the very minimum, you own an apology to the mayor and our submission.

And our city, our professional, you're out of order, Councilman.

Okay.

Councilman, or Councilwoman Gibson.

All right, that um definitely took a turn.

So I'll I'll speak to my original comments.

Um, that I want to be on the record saying that I absolutely want everything in writing.

Um the notion that we would sign a 30-year agreement for multi-billion dollar contract for a city of 150,000 people based on trust.

Um staggering to me.

Uh we can trust, but we verify.

Um we have lawyers and contracts for a reason.

Um you're doing business, especially on this scale.

Yeah, it's not a matter of trust, it's putting in the contract.

Um, to where the rest of that comment went, I thought that was incredibly disrespectful to chastise members of our community from the dias like this.

Okay.

Um regarding the motion substitution.

I want to amend it specifically member directed resource to include at the end.

If the city brings additional significant load to be further decided by council and staff to the agency, Naperville shall have the right to have this included in its MDR.

Is there a second or councilman McRoom where you want a second?

Are you willing to second the the amendment to the motion of substitution?

Yes, second.

She can't edit that on the screen.

Okay, yeah, she can't edit it on the screen.

We're we're limited there.

Okay.

Everybody on the same page of of what the the now amended motion of substitution is.

Okay, councilman Holzar.

Yeah, just to clarify, um, yes, I do understand it.

It is it's not the request I asked for, so that's I will still vote no for it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

All right.

I think we're ready here.

We have a motion and a second on the amended motion of substitution.

Roll call.

Syed.

Yes.

White?

Aye.

Wilson?

Yes.

Worley?

Yes.

Gibson.

No.

Holzhour?

No.

Kelly?

Aye.

Longabaugh?

Aye.

McBroom?

Aye.

Motion passes 7-2.

Thank you, Council, for working together tonight and getting us to some sort of action on.

I think what everybody in this room would like to see is action.

And uh this is one small step reminding you that um more steps need to happen.

Obviously, the negotiations that IMEA, our purchase agreements, all of this stuff coming back to a future council meeting.

So lots more to do.

And uh there is progress.

Thank you.

Item M1.

Item M1 is approve the award of bid for insulated conductors to the Okina Company for an amount not to exceed $5,526,340 for a one-year term.

Councilman White.

Mayor move to approve the award of bid 25-172 insulated conductors to Okanaye Company for an amount not to exceed $5,526,340 and for a one-year term.

Second Kelly.

Motion and then second on item one roll call.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holtower.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Longabaugh.

Aye.

Mukroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Item 01.

Item 01 concur with staff's recommendation to oppose increased land development authority for regional transit agencies.

There is one speaker regarding your recommendation to oppose increased land development.

And the first speaker is Seth Deegan.

Hello, Council Members.

My name is Seth.

I am 21 years old and I have been a metro commuter to Chicago for the past three years.

I want to bring to your attention that the Metro train service is on the verge of financial collapse.

The regional transportation authority is facing a 40% operating budget shortfall as federal COVID relief expires.

For Naperville commuters, this means fewer trains, limited schedules, higher fares, and possibly no weekend service at all.

This isn't hypothetical.

Other U.S.

regions like Philadelphia have already cut all of their commuter rail lines when flood when funding failed.

If we allow this to happen here, our economic backbone that connects Naperville to Chicago will be severely weakened.

The reality is Metro cannot continue to survive on fares and state subsidies alone.

This is why legislation in Springfield is considering allowing Metro and agencies to develop land around their stations.

Today, transit agencies can do little more than pave land into parking lots.

That is the least productive use of some of the most valuable r real estate in Chicago land.

If you look abroad, you'll see how different it can be.

In Japan, private railway companies like Tokyo and JR East generate up to 40% of their revenue from real estate, and they've developed around their stations.

Shopping, offices, and housing.

In Singapore, the MRT system uses station area development to cover operating costs, ensuring trains remain frequent, reliable, and affordable without burdening taxpayers.

These systems thrive because stations are not just places to park cars.

They are anchors for vibrant communities.

Naperville is uniquely positioned to benefit from this model.

We have the fastest express connection to downtown Chicago in just 35 minutes.

Property in UR station is already among the most valuable in the region, yet our zoning and land use rules prevent us from taking advantage of it.

By encouraging mixed use development around the station, we can broaden our tax base, ease upward pressure on housing costs, and attract families and businesses that will strengthen Naperville for decades.

I understand concerns about change, but opposing this legislation is not protecting Neighborville.

It is isolating it.

Without action, residents will soon face higher fares, worse service, and declining property values as our connection to Chicago weakens.

Supporting station area development is a pragmatic fiscally responsible way to keep Metro viable and to secure Naperville's future prosperity.

I urge you to discredit the staff recommendation and instead support granting transit agencies the authority to develop land around stations.

If Naperville leads on this, we will not just preserve our commuter lifeline, we will strengthen it for the next generation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman White, I may have a motion.

Mayor move to concur with the staff's recommendation to oppose increased land development authority for regional transit agencies.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on O one roll call.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzhour.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Longabaugh.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

New business.

Do any members an item for new business?

Councilman White.

Um thank you, Mayor.

Um, I've had a lot of, I think we all have.

Uh I've had uh emails on individuals or residents calling us about um street parking, overnight street parking.

And uh no, it's it was a pretty big deal.

I saw one of the items was in the in the uh consent agenda today.

But um I understand why the ordinance was in has been in place for so many years, but um I think the di family, I'll just say family dynamics, I think have kind of changed over a period of time.

I think you have more adult children coming back home and uh not being able to buy a home or get finding a job, whatever those things might be.

Um I I kind of like what we do as far as giving it to the homeowners associations to uh to make that call.

But uh I'm not sure what the right answer is.

I can but I'm I am saying that I can it's pretty clear to me that you know things have changed, and uh maybe we should uh look at coming up with some alternative ways or additional ways in which we may be able to accommodate residents who uh are in that situation.

Um I get the not wanting to have a lot of cars on the street in front of your house and all that, and potentially having um you know public safety vehicles haven't being able to get through at any given time.

That's something now obviously should be considered, but uh just some I think staff maybe take a look at Ms.

Lautner someone um take a look out and see if it if it makes sense to maybe even take a look at that, Director Laden.

Yeah, staff too.

Um I think both uh and Ted and um and police have been seeing um an increase um in requests for some more flexibility for overnight parking.

Um I've actually asked our team to start doing some additional research as into ways that we could possibly expand the program you know due to the inquiries that we've been receiving.

So we've been doing some preliminary research into some other options.

Um I would ask, you know, if it's the will of the council that they want to look at broadening the program that you give us a couple months to um for TED, police, uh public works and fire to work together to look at some different options and then bring those back to you.

Councilman White, would you like to get a show of hands to direct staff to bring something back?

Councilman White's asking for a show of hands too.

Okay, those in favor, raise your hands.

He's got plenty of support.

Okay, councilman Sayad.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to give a shout out to Nipperville police department and fire department in the last two months.

I have seen, came to know, and including my own daughter, met with an accident on 75th Street.

And the way Nipperville Police Department and Fire Department have handled all the cases, four different cases.

I know all have given very positive response or feedback, how professionally, how well they have taken care.

They met with major accidents, and all are safe, sound, and they had very high regard for Nepalville Fire Department and police, the way they have handled those cases.

So thank you so much, Chief and uh police chief for the outstanding and amazing work you people have been doing it because we get feedbacks, we get calls, text, everything.

And the other thing is that you know, public safety is our top priority, which we all talk about this.

And so little concern is that on 75th Street, we get a lot of accidents.

So I don't know why.

What is the reason?

Uh the day my daughter met with an accident in the evening at at night next day morning at the same spot there was an accident.

And between Nipperville Boulevard and Plainfield and Nipperwheel Road, that is the strip where most of the accidents are happening.

I don't know what to do there, but uh it's a it's a caution.

A lot, I just wanted to make it if you can think or have some something where you know we can avoid those accidents.

Yep.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Longebell.

Thank you, Mayor.

I've saved this um for new business because council will have to take action on this.

It is with heavy heart that I share some difficult news tonight.

Never thought that I would be making this statement from up here, but sometimes things happen that are out of your control.

This will be my final city council meeting as councilwoman.

I am taking a professional opportunity in the private sector, which does not allow me to serve in public office.

I love my career, and I love serving at city council, which has made this a gut-wrenching decision both for me and for my family.

And so what's different now than when I ran in 2023.

Um last year, following a 31-year career at the same firm, my team was unexpectedly made redundant.

And in today's economic climate with three daughters in college, turning down a stable permanent position is just isn't a risk that I can afford to take.

And so we agonized it and looked at every viable option that would allow me to continue to serve.

Unfortunately, we cannot find one that worked for my family.

I hope it's clear just how much of myself I have put into this role.

I've tried to be present and available as much as possible because I love serving this community.

This has never been about optics for me as I sit here with a snotty nose.

So over the past two and a half years, I've attended more than 50 festivals, 15 parades, 50 resident meetings, and over a hundred council and board meetings.

You elected me to represent you, and I have always felt it was my responsibility to show up.

I will truly miss connecting with all of you.

To the staff, to the mayor, to all of my council members, thank you.

I am truly proud of what we have accomplished together.

And it has been an honor to be part of a process that is collaborative, thoughtful, and focused on the community.

Everything that I have done has been grounded in preparation and fact checking.

I genuinely loved digging into the agenda items, asking questions, spotlighting topics residents might not otherwise hear about.

And yes, I'll even miss these long meetings.

It honestly breaks my heart to walk away.

To those who elected me, I cannot apologize enough for not being able to serve out my four-year term.

I feel like I'm betraying you, and it's something I'll never get over.

So from the bottom of my heart, thank you for electing me and trusting me to represent you.

This will be effective on Monday, the 25th.

Thank you all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was way harder than I thought it was gonna be.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

A very unfortunate end to the night for the city, for all of us, uh for me personally.

I've been here for a little over six years now.

Served with I I should have counted, I don't know, probably probably more than 20 colleagues up here at least, I would think at this point.

And I don't think I could say anyone I served with worked harder than Allison has.

Uh, literally running from place to place to see agenda items, uh pouring her heart and soul into this job.

I I don't think you could draw someone up better than Allison to serve in local government and be honest.

Counsel works harder, uh, interacts with her colleagues in a better, more respectful way.

I can't think of anyone the way she interacts with the public, uh, gives fair and honest consideration on everything that she does.

Um, and for me, just a friend that I've been up here with, sadly only two years.

It feels like longer sometimes, right?

Um, so it's a very sad night, but thank you.

Uh thank you for everything you've done for this council for the city, and we will miss you.

Councilman White.

And just to echo with uh Councilman Kelly said uh you you've been fantastic up here.

Uh um your passion for this community is evident, and it's evident just when you just got up here and and just spoke.

And uh, this community is so much better for you being here.

Um I think above all of that uh your heart is in it, and you're doing this for all for the right reasons.

Uh you're not looking for spotlight or any of that kind of stuff, and uh uh I I commend your efforts and and um you're still gonna be involved in the community, may not be lucky, but I know you'll be out there when you'll probably see you out there running, you know.

I'm sure you're still doing your running runs every day.

But uh we're gonna miss you.

Um I know this was hard for you, uh, but uh thank you.

Thank you for serving Napraville.

Councilman McRaw.

Thank you, Mayor.

So that was shocking, honestly.

I was terrified you were gonna say you were really sick or something like that.

And I and uh you're probably a little mad at me for the rant I just went on, but I just want to say that uh, you know, when we were first elected, I was like, oh my gosh, I gotta sit next to this crazy liberal.

And I was and uh you're probably a little mad at me for the rant I just went on, but I I just want to say that uh um you know, when we were first elected, I was like, oh my gosh, I gotta sit next to this crazy liberal and I I can tell you it's been a joy sitting next to Allison, and uh I I talked about you and the community um to my to my supporters, and I I just say you know, she really works hard.

Uh she's an independent thinker.

Um she's a very pleasant person, and I really work well with her together.

And um, so I am sad to hear this news.

I I do rely on your QA sometimes to uh find things that I overlook, and so I'll miss that.

But um, it's been a joy to work with you and uh and get to know you in a way that I didn't think I I would.

And um so best of luck.

It sounds like a great opportunity, and uh uh I'll miss I'll miss having you here.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

So sorry, Josh took my uh QA that I was gonna say.

She's also known as Cliff's notes.

Uh just just the amount of research and effort and heart that you put into this.

I mean, I you know, for we had a lot of people here, but a lot of people also aren't here that won't know.

And um, I mean, I'll I'll be happy to tell them the amazing job that you do and care uh and uh about being up here and representing them and the uh research and questions that you ask to the to the staff to talking to neighbors that uh I'll I'll be truly sad to see you not here.

Um I appreciate the time that you you've been here.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Matt.

So Alison, I know you for more than three years now.

I remember the day and I a cold morning, snow day.

We had a project to be approved, and it was there on social media on the agenda and everything.

And Alison was there at the project early in the morning.

Running from Naperville downtown to Southside, and taking pictures and sharing on Facebook.

And I was shocked.

I was surprised.

The commitment she has got.

She said, you know, so I personally wanted to go and see the project and then you know, take it forward.

So listen, thank you so much for your service.

You are a wonderful person.

I have seen you practically working with the community at City Council and everywhere.

And you are a banker, I'm a banker.

So we all bankers follow the process.

Policies, and make sure that task is done.

So you have that quality where you have been doing those things.

And congratulations on your new assignment.

Definitely, I will personally miss you because I was the person who can call you anytime.

Look for a meeting or a coffee or a lunch anytime.

But definitely I will continue doing that.

Yes, I need a person, a friend like you, who can be with me where I feel that I need to have something, you are there.

Thank you so much for your service.

And Napole will definitely miss you.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Um yeah, uh, Councilwoman Langaba, I have admired your work up here on council for the last two years and four months.

Um, and it was apparent, you know, all the times I sat out there watching how much work, um objectivity you brought to the dais, um, and that you you did your homework.

Um, but now being on this side of the dais, holy smokes, I have never seen anybody more thorough and with more attention to detail than you.

And that's I mean, not just in elected office, like any of my professional experience.

I don't think our community can fully grasp the amount of attention Councilwoman Longabad pays to every single item in that agenda.

I mean, if you look at the QA, you might have a little bit of an idea, but I guarantee you the emails she sends on top of the QA leading up to the meetings are unbelievable.

Um this is a huge loss for our city.

Um I don't doubt that you will still be very involved with a lot of things.

I'm very grateful for that.

I know this was a gut-wrenching decision.

Um respect your choice, and we're gonna miss you a lot up here.

Thank you for everything you've done for us.

Councilman Holvar.

Yeah, I I agree with all the comments that were made before.

Um, and also I'll say that I'm excited about a new opportunity for you, which um you know anybody who who is getting you in a in a new role is extremely lucky to have you, so that's I'm I'm happy for them.

Um I think a couple of things that really stand out to me about Alison.

You know, the first time she ran for city council, she was the fifth place vote getter by 57 votes.

It takes a hell of a lot of courage to pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go run again.

Um, and she did it, you know, and that was a couple year long process to get there, and then on councils, numerous people alluded to.

Um, she is, I I think I can fairly say the hardest worker, at least I mean, I I can't touch the amount of research that you do, uh not even close.

Um really that's the measure of your character.

Um I would also say your grace.

This is a very stressful, difficult job.

It is really easy to fly off the handle sometimes or snap.

Uh or you know, I I can just personally say that many times I look over at you as a role model for someone I would someday like to be.

But I don't think I'm quite there.

But uh, but really you are one of the most gracious, classy people I know.

I will dearly miss you.

Um, but one thing that I heard in your speech that I I don't think is true is is I don't think you let the city down in any way at all.

Um you served marvelously.

Um, you know, and we got your back going forward.

Um it's it's such a pleasure to be your friend, Allison.

Councilman Sayed?

Yeah, I just wanted to add that we both have served on Napolewille Public Library together.

And when she moved to Naperu City Council, I was sad that time that we are missing a good person at Naperville Public Library Board.

And today I'm in the same situation.

And I'm definitely going to miss you, Alison.

And you are the person who has motivated me to run for the second time.

I see how much hard work you have done during your first term and second term.

And running for office is not easy, my friends.

And I tell to all my friends, run for office once in lifetime.

You will come to know how much it takes.

People say it takes a village.

No, it takes more than 10 villages to run for office.

Once you run, you become more mature, more sensible, and more thoughtful.

A lot of things you learn.

So that's what you know, running for offices and patience.

You learn about patience also.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alison.

Well, um, Councilwoman Longbell, I'm on behalf of the council and and all of Naperville.

I want to thank you for your courage.

Courage to step into the arena and do a really tough job.

You've been a thoughtful and a principled voice at this table.

You always brought fairness and compassion and integrity to your work, and your dedication has made Naperville stronger.

And we are grateful for the time and energy you our city.

In your future, we will always have a run through.

Is there any other new business?

Councilman.

Sure.

Is there a second?