We'll start with roll call.

Branham.

Janalski.

Gross.

Here.

Hansen.

Here.

Hogness.

Here.

Llewellyn?

Here.

Oh, there's two of them here today.

Yeah.

Nalwala?

Yes.

Okay.

Raman, that's me.

And Wanner?

All right.

And we have a student member today, Joshua.

Welcome, Joshua.

So we'll start with the public forum.

If there's any members in the public that wish to speak on matters that are not on the agenda today.

Please let us know.

Those that wish to speak on a specific agenda item will be provided an opportunity at that time.

Members wishing to speak shall state their name and address for the record.

And just a reminder, you're limited to three minutes for your presentation.

Anyone planning on coming up?

All right.

Not seeing anyone.

We'll go to reports and recommendations.

There are 10 items to be considered today.

The first item is the approval of the meeting minutes.

Do the commissioners have any corrections or clarifications on the meeting minutes for August 20, 2025 as drafted?

Okay, if not, um all those in favor say any opposed, say nay.

Okay, no opposition.

And oh do me a favor.

When you say yes or no, a and nay, please state your name.

So it'll start over again.

So who was first?

Hansen.

Hansen.

Okay.

Second.

Okay, it should be with second.

Okay.

All right.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

The next item is continuation of building review board case one eleven.

Recommendations recommended recommend the adoption of 2023 National Electrical Code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments one through six.

Staff presentation, please.

So we've uh we've already gone through these prior in the uh previous BRB meeting.

Um with the uh the first issue is the National Electric Code.

Um if there's any questions, uh feel free to ask.

If not, anybody have any questions from the review board?

Nope.

Okay.

Any public testimony regarding this item?

Okay, hearing none.

We'd like to receive a motion for approval.

Um we'd like to someone to make a motion, please.

Gross motions to approve.

Hansen, second.

Okay.

Any anybody uh please vote?

Yay and nay.

Yes.

Any nays?

Okay, no nays.

The next item is recommend the adoption of 2024 international fuel gas code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments two through six or two of six.

City presentation, same as the National Electric Code.

We have no new uh new amendments to propose for this for this building code and uh recommend adoption.

Any questions from the BRB?

Nope.

Any public testimony on this item?

Okay, hearing none, I'd like to get a motion to recommend approval.

I should motion house this.

Okay, need a second.

Llewellyn a second.

Llewellyn second, okay.

Roll call.

All in those uh say a yay.

Any nays?

No nays.

Okay, moving right along here.

Item number three.

Recommend the adoption of 2024 international mechanical code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments.

Item three of six staff presentation.

Again, uh staff recommends approval.

Okay.

Questions from the building review board?

Any questions?

No, okay.

Okay.

No questions.

Any public testimony on this item?

Okay.

Hearing none.

Um those in favor say a nays?

Do we need a motion?

Okay.

Motion?

Okay.

We'll have someone motion, please.

I'll motion.

Louell in a motion.

Llewellyn motion for approval.

Growth second.

All in favor say yay.

Aye.

Any nays?

No nays.

Okay.

Item number five.

Recommend the adoption of the 2024 international swimming pool and spa code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments.

Item four of six.

Staff presentation.

Again, we recommend approval.

Okay.

Questions from the building review board?

No.

Okay.

Any public testimony on this item?

Okay, no public testimony.

Like to have someone motion to approve.

Yes, sir.

So we'll move.

Growth second.

Hansen first growth second.

All those in favor say yay.

A?

Aye.

Any nays?

No nays.

Next item is the rec recommend the adoption of 2024 International Property Maintenance Code with the proposed amendments to section 303.2, exception number two, and keep the existing amendments.

Item five of six.

Staff presentation.

Again, this is this is one we went over previously.

I feel is a very important amendment to add uh for safety for in ground pools.

And we we recommend approval.

Any questions from the building review board?

Nope.

No.

Any public testimony on this item.

Hearing none.

Need a motion to recommend approval, please.

Okay, Llewellyn, yes.

Second.

Second.

Llewellyn.

Okay.

Oh, Nalwala and Louelan, sorry.

All right.

Uh need a motion to recommend.

Okay, so uh all those in favor say a?

Aye.

Any nays?

Okay, no nays.

Next item is recommend the adoption of 2024 International Plumbing Code with proposed amendments to section 403, 717.3, 717.3.1, 717.4, and 717.8, and keep the existing amendments item six of six.

Staff presentation.

Uh so we are proposing amendments to the IPC uh for the uh the minimum plumbing facilities uh to eliminate confusion because we use the Illinois plumbing code, so we're getting rid of that section in the IPC so there's no confusion.

Uh and then there are uh quite a few changes, um uh text changes to uh pipelining, and that is to uh to assist our water department when it comes to uh lining of existing piping and staff does recommend approval.

Any questions from the building review board?

Yes, I have a question.

Mark, um I went through that matrix that you had provided with all the code changes and stuff, and I didn't specifically see anything in regards to our uh the board's decision on the copper piping and whatnot.

Just want to make sure we're not superseding that vote from a few months ago.

No, no, this has nothing to do with that.

Um that that BRB decision was um uh was to challenge or to to challenge our existing amendments to the uh to for water distribution or domestic supply piping.

Uh this has nothing to do with that.

This is okay um sewer and and water services.

Um we do have a water department rep in here.

Am I speaking correctly on that, Jeff?

It does it include water services or is it just the sewers?

Yes, it I'm sorry, it is just for the sanitary sanitary sewers.

Yeah, that makes sense that you're you're just lining supply line.

All right, thank you, Jeff.

Thank you.

All right, uh any questions from the building review board on that item?

No, no, okay.

Um like to have a motion for approval, please.

Yes, growth second.

Okay, all those in favor say aye any nays.

Okay, no nays.

Next item is item eight.

Provide feedback on the proposed amendment to 2024 international fire code, city staff presentation.

Uh so this is one we brought up at the last meeting, but I just want to bring it up again because it's a it's a big change, and I want to give the public time to to digest and discuss.

Uh but basically all new parking garages would require uh fire sprinklers uh according to this.

So again, no action needs to be taken.

I'm just looking for for feedback on this proposed amendment.

Okay.

Any questions from the building review board on that?

I guess I have one question just to clarify.

This is S2 parking garages, so parking structures, not residential garages.

Exactly, commercial, yeah.

Doesn't matter if they're open or closed facilities.

They would need to be sprinkled no matter what.

No matter what.

Okay.

Any public testimony on this item?

None.

Okay.

No motion is required at this time on this one.

I'm just looking for general feedback.

So the next item is provide feedback on the proposed amendment to the 2024 international existing building code.

City presentation, please.

So this is language that lived in the IBC amendments.

Um it it got reworked and clarified a little bit, um, and then it got moved to the existing building code.

I I dropped the ball on this one.

I didn't realize it was getting moved to the existing building code because we we've gone over the existing building code before, and I propose no new amendments.

Um so I I dropped the ball on this one, so that's why it's in front of you today, uh, just to give give a chance for feedback.

Uh, but it's um it's just uh clarifying the existing language.

Any questions from the building review board?

No.

Okay, hearing none.

Any public testimony on this item.

Okay, hearing none.

No motion is required at this time, just looking for feedback.

The next item is to receive the Illinois Stretch Energy Code presentation and public and accept public comments.

Please state your name, your address, and limit your comments to three minutes, please.

So he's on the agenda item.

Oh, that's true.

We're gonna give him no limit for the time, right?

30 minutes, 30 minutes.

30 minutes total.

Yeah, thank you for having me.

My name is John Gossman.

Um my address is not in Naperville.

I'm not sure if it's applicable right now.

Um I can give my work address if that would say.

That'd be fine.

Uh 20 Northwacker Drive, Chicago, 60606.

So, yeah, we'll be going over just some of the components of the Illinois stretch code today.

I want to thank uh Mark Dudash for the time today and the rest of the building review board for the extended time that you've given me to kind of go over these uh provisions.

So we'll go over uh who we are, my organization and our partners on this, uh go over some Illinois stretch energy code basics, benefits from improved energy codes, cost of building to the stretch code, energy codes, and the develop and the effect on development, and then the resources that we provide.

So, one of our partners on this is Slipstream.

I am with the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

We are one of six regional efficiency organizations, uh also known as a Rio across the United States.

We cover 13 states in the Midwest.

We are a membership nonprofit with 170 plus members, touching on all sides of the energy efficiency industry.

So Mia and Slipstream, uh, we have many years of support for cities and and states advancing um and adopting energy codes as well as on the uh training code officials for compliance.

We provide one-on-one support for energy code and policy adoption and implementation to an array of Illinois municipalities.

We offer building science expertise with extensive experience doing field research on energy use in buildings, and we engage extensive partnerships among the energy efficiency industry.

Oops.

Um, a little bit about me.

I've been with Mia uh since 2023 working on building codes and policy.

I conduct trainings on the Illinois stretch code to municipalities across the Chicagoland region.

I oversee general building science trainings across numerous Midwest states, uh manage field studies to assess energy code measures in uh new single single family homes, and then I do have prior experience uh a little bit in the construction industry as well.

So getting into the uh actual components of the stretch code, so it uses a site energy index target, uh which is different than the base code.

The stretch code targets increase in energy efficiency measures roughly every three years, much like the base code as well.

And then once formally adopted by a municipality, it establishes the minimum energy efficiency requirements for new construction additions and major renovations.

And I will say you can choose to adopt either the residential or the commercial or both.

And I'll also caveat that when if you adopt it, you can roll it back.

You're not tied into this forever for the end of time.

So for whatever reason you adopt it and it's not working out, the municipality can choose to roll it back to this to the base code.

Here are some kind of timelines and site energy index targets.

So you'll see the current stretch code, the 2023 residential stretch code has a site energy index of a 0.50.

So the comparison point here is the 2006 IECC.

So currently the 0.5 site energy index means to be at least 50% more efficient than the 2006 IECC.

The next iteration of the stretch code coming out next year will be ready for adoption, probably in the third quarter of next year.

That'll have a performance target of 60% more efficient than the 2006 IECC.

And then that trend kind of continues all the way up to 2032, where you have 75% more efficient than a 2006 IECC.

So it is a very uh it gives a good runway and predictability on where the energy codes are going over time.

So some overall mandatory provisions of the stretch code of the residential stretch code, um, electric readiness, EV readiness or EV charger installed, solar readiness, and then a demand response capable component as well.

So with these uh mandatory measures, you hit all of these, and then you choose a compliance path.

So the stretch code does introduce a new compliance path with the FIAS or the passive house certification as meeting compliance.

You can also meet it through the net zero appendix requirements, and then uh the bottom three on the right hand side here are kind of the more uh typical compliance pathways with the prescriptive, the performance, and then ERI pathway.

Those have been amended slightly to uh to meet those uh targets that I mentioned before.

So here are some differences from the base code, and this is comparing to the 2024 IECC since that will soon be the statewide code in Illinois come December.

So the stretch code on the prescriptive side requires buildings to meet more energy efficiency credits, so you'll see 30 efficiency credits as opposed to the base model credits of 10, so 20 more efficiency credits on the prescripted pathway.

The simulated total building performance, the change here is that instead of an energy cost test, it now measures it through a site energy target.

The ERI method, so the stretch code uses uh different scores for all electric versus mixed fuel homes, so you do have to have a more efficient ERI score if you are uh mixed fuel, so there is some incentivization of going all electric, though this is not an electrification code.

And then these bottom two, the passive house and the and the zero energy, it just shows that those are now a compliance pathway where before jurisdictions would have to adopt those as applicable compliance pathways.

So this is moving to commercial, same kind of setup here, so I won't go through it as uh in-depth here, but you can see still the site energy index targets and the kind of the uh predictable runway all the way through 2032.

The mandatory provisions in the commercial stretch code are a renewable energy requirement, energy storage readiness, electric readiness, and then demand response requirements.

So similarly, you meet those mandatory measures, and then you choose your compliance pathway.

Um recognize these top ones I've mentioned before, the FIAS and the net zero, and then the kind of the usual ones, uh the IECC prescriptive pathway or the performance, and then uh also ASHRAY 90.1 2022 has been amended slightly to meet the CESIA targets.

Some uh how the commercial stretch code differs from the base code.

So again, the uh prescriptive or simulated performance tightens the performance targets for both of those.

The ash ray um compliance pathway swaps the again the uh cost metric for a site energy use intensity target, and then passive house and the commercial zero energy, similarly uh it allows that as a compliance pathway without jurisdictions having to separately adopt it.

So it's the benefits of stretch codes and just enhanced energy codes in general.

So it does uh create cost savings compared to the base code.

It's a policy mechanism to address building energy performance and any sort of climate goals that municipalities have improves indoor air quality from tighter building envelopes and better sealed ducts and improved ventilation, and it increases the ability to maintain safe indoor conditions during energy outages due to buildings designed with tighter building envelopes, so does increase the resilience of all buildings.

These next slides are just demonstrating that high energy efficiency and building to the stretch code does not equate to higher cost all the time.

This is a builder here in the Chicagoland area.

This is not a pitch for them, but they did give a presentation that we are part of that kind of demonstrated how they were able to build affordable housing while um providing all of these uh above code measures.

So they have solar, all electric, heat pump water heaters, tight building envelopes with ERVs, advanced framing for improved insulation, and uh R5 windows for better insulation and soundproofing.

So a lot of these measures actually go above what the stretch code is is um wanting.

So just demonstrating that this is now be this is being done in the Chicago land area, building to high efficiency standards while making the house still affordable and the construction costs affordable as well.

Uh just the picture here in this lower kind of right quadrant, these are the homes with the solar panels on top.

So the changes in upfront costs to build the stretch code.

So this analysis was done by PNL, Pacific Northwest National Lab.

They analyze the prescriptive compliance pathway for residential homes, uh, which I will caveat in saying that most builders that I'm familiar with use performance pathways now to kind of lower the cost of building.

So them comparing the them doing this analysis on prescriptive.

Uh, there could be even a uh lesser cost to build, depending on uh which compliance pathway you're choosing.

So the stretch code, as mentioned, does come uh allow compliance by providing separate uh compliance pathways.

The readiness measures are the only definite new added costs, and the benefits of the stretch code are uh more than the the um one-time cost.

So this asterisk here showing that this is an analysis from the 2021 IECC to the stretch code.

There is a request for an updated analysis from the new stretch code to the new base code, um, but these are the numbers the the more most recent numbers that we have access to.

So for single family homes, the increased cost is about $7300 with the efficiency measures and the readiness measures for a uh multifamily construction that cost is about $5300 more per unit.

The average new home price in Naperville is about $600,000.

So the stretch code is adding a slightly over 1% cost uh change in upfront costs, which as this next slide will show, it will it does pay for itself over time.

So these life cycle costs here, part of that analysis from the previous slide shows that over the cost over the lifetime of a 30-year mortgage, the energy cost savings are 2300, and then the avoided retrofit costs are $6400, uh leading to a total savings over the lifetime of that loan at close to $9,000.

So you have that initial costs up front, a little bit more over time, it does end up paying for itself.

So a lot of one of the points that comes up is that more improved energy codes is a uh deterrence to development.

So we've seen many, we have many examples across the United States where a municipality adopted a uh improved energy code where there was over the long term, no long-term effects of uh permits being pulled in that municipality.

So what you see typically happen is a big ramp up before the new code takes place as builders try to uh get in before the code change, it dips a little bit just to kind of uh offset that that ramp up, and then it does stabilize and go back to normal.

So in March of 2020, MIA, my uh company, my organization conducted a preliminary analysis, which found that energy code adoption has no long-term direct correlation on the number of residential single family building permits pulled in counties along Midwestern uh the states that border Illinois.

So part of that research was expanded last year in 2024.

Again, there is no clear negative or positive impact of energy code adoptions in counties on state lines, suggesting that the adoption of stronger building energy codes in Illinois does not cause development to shift into neighboring states.

Energy codes are not likely a primary driver of development or a lack thereof, and it is a critical that police policymakers and other decision makers fully understand this relationship to sufficiently support community goals and housing needs objectives.

So, some uh resources that are available to municipalities that decide to adopt the stretch code.

There is a $200,000 stretch code building grant program.

It's designed to facilitate the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of the Illinois Stretch Energy Code, provides financial support for education, community engagement, and technical assistance.

It aims to streamline the process by offering resources for internal capacity building, public engagement efforts, and technical training for staff responsible for code enforcement.

The applications uh available through December of this year or until funds are exhausted, but there is a lot of money still on the table for municipalities.

I know there haven't been that many that have uh applied for this particular grant, so I know that there is still ample room for uh municipalities to submit an application for this.

So, additional support that MIA and Slipstream can provide, uh, compliance guidance, targeted training and education, plan review assistance.

We can work with builders and um for technical guidance, targeted training and education to them as well, and then for policy making, we can there's assistance with stretch code adoption or advancement as well.

So that is my presentation today, and again, I appreciate your guys' time today.

Thank you, Mark.

Or John, sorry, thank you, John.

Okay.

Is there any public testimony on this item?

There's multiple people that have signed up.

So I'll probably just go down the list here.

That's probably the best thing for me to do.

Um, call Adam first.

Oh, perfect.

Adam's already up.

Yes.

All right.

Uh uh, my name is Adam Van Summeren.

Um, address is 407 East Gartner here in Naperville.

Um, one of the owners of Charleston Building and Development.

We specialize in residential custom homes.

A lot of what we do here is right in Neighborville.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to us this afternoon.

I'll be one of a handful of builders you're gonna hear from.

Um, just as our small group that's assembled here, we build over 60 homes locally, just as the group that you're gonna hear from.

Several of us are multi-generational builders, several of us are Napal residents.

This isn't just this is our home.

This just isn't where we work.

Stretch codes being introduced today, they don't seem to bring real value and little or no return on the upfront of investment.

Our numbers show a little bit differently than the ones shown in the presentation.

I'm just one of several builders that do not support the uh adoption of these stretch codes.

Uh, you're gonna hear several real life scenarios, real proposals on real homes that are currently being built that'll be bid out with meeting some of these prospective compliance stretch code rules.

Uh hope you'll be able to see that the return of the upfront investment does not pay back, the increase on performance is minimal, and the value to the homeowners just isn't present.

Personally, on a home that I just started here in Naperville, um, to achieve uh the gentleman said most people build on performance, that is correct, but to achieve compliance in the prospective um analysis, we would have to put R 30 insulation in our walls.

The cost of my clients would be 42,800 to achieve our 30 in the walls.

There's a law of diminishing returns that needs to be considered when we're talking about these kind of numbers.

I don't want to bore you with too much.

You're gonna hear plenty more.

I just want to thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Adam.

The next person is either Dan or Don.

Dan, thank you.

Uh, thank you, BRB members.

Dan George Vek, I live at 1309 North Loomis Street.

Uh, like Adam, I'm a local builder.

I own Lake West Custom Homes.

I'm a second generation builder.

I'm also a lifelong Naperville resident, so I'm making my comments today, both as a business owner, but also as a community member uh and somebody that wants to maybe you know add some detail to the conversation with respect to cost to the consumer.

So uh, you know, just kind of echoing Adam Sediments, and I think there's gonna be some consistencies in some of the comments that you hear today.

You know, the proposed stretch code and the associated cost for compliance as compared to the current 2021 codes that we build under, again, with performance measurements, so you can actually take tangible measurements of how well a home is performing.

Uh you know, the cost and benefit analysis doesn't make sense.

Uh I did go through the exercise with my energy rater of putting together specs that would uh allow me to be compliant with the proposed 2023 stretch code for a home that we just started construction on.

And I guess you know, just as a general comment, I I think we have an affordability issue in general with new construction.

I think you can see it across the entire housing spectrum in Naperville.

Uh a lot of this stems from you know, inflationary realities that started five years ago, but the fact of the matter is, as you can all attest, you guys are all Naperville residents.

You've seen where prices have gone in our local housing market and in the new construction industry, we're certainly seeing those things probably to a higher degree than than the re than the resale marketplace would show.

Um so, just as a general analysis for a 4200 square foot home that we're currently building, which by the way was a fire loss home, so these folks have already gone through the rigors of of updated pricing relative to their insurance policy and how much more expensive it is to replace their their home that was damaged by fire last year.

We have essentially a 19,971 dollar cost increase if we go from our already extremely efficient home that we build under the performance methodology of the 2021 code that we're currently under to an extrapolated compliance of the 2023 stretch code.

I think in general, you know, when you look at the purported energy savings over the life of the home on an annual basis, there is no real ROI on this upfront investment, and it's just gonna add to an already out of control issue that we have with affordability.

Um, I I think that if if a consumer, a homeowner, somebody that's building a home more inclined to build to a stretch code, that's what they would like to do on their own volition, God bless them.

They should they should have the ability to do that.

I think considering the adoption of a code that provides negligible return for extraordinarily higher costs doesn't make any sense at all.

So thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

Next person is Christine.

Hello, Christian with Autumn Homes.

Um, I'm a second generation builder as a family.

We've been building homes in Naperville since 79.

We've got over 500 homes in the field.

Uh I'm here to respectfully request that you oppose the adaptation of the stretch code.

Um, echoing some of the builders that were up here previous.

We did a cost analysis on a house that I build frequently in Naperville.

It's about 3800 square feet.

Um, my cost to my client would have been 24,800 some odd dollars, um, which just doesn't jive with the analysis that we've seen uh to date on the stretch code.

So, you know, my concerns here not only is return on investment, is that it takes away some of my customers' right to choose.

We're a custom home builder.

If we would want a client to build to the stretch code, they would have that right with us.

That includes the electrification, that includes insulation values right down the list.

So I've got major concerns there.

The other issue I have too is that as a Naperville resident, um, as a Naperville area business owner, I'm always representing Naperville as a great community to bring your family to.

My concern would be I could have a client where I'm selling Naperville, and they might see our adaptation of the stretch code as being extra regulation that they might not want to deal with.

In that case, there's other options to choose from.

We do work in Down Earth's Grove, we do work less work in Lyle.

But my point as a resident, I want to continue to build up the home base or inventory of homes that are energy efficient.

Mainly I'm in home replacement.

I'm tearing down small homes.

They were built in 1959, 1962.

They've got lead paint, they've got newspaper for insulation, they've got terrible windows and mechanicals.

I'm able to scrape that from the inventory and replace it with a beautiful energy efficient home, which impacts our inventory as a as a whole.

So with that, I want to thank you for your time, and once again, please oppose the stretch code adaptation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next person is Jeff.

I own Monument Homes, Custom Home Builder in Naperville here.

I'm the first generation home builder, and I've been building for 28 years.

As a longtime Naperville resident and builder, I'm an advocate for affordable housing solutions in our city.

I'm here today to express serious concerns regarding their potential adoption of the revised stretch energy code package for single-family homes.

Let me be clear.

I support efforts to improve energy efficiency and build a more sustainable future.

However, we must also be realistic about the financial impact and policies that could have to our community, especially on those who can least afford it.

I'm currently building a new home now that was about 4,000 square feet.

We plugged in the 2023 stretch code revised plans that were just shown you a few minutes ago, and the impact, the direct impact on that to go to that code would cost me slightly over $30,000 to duplicate that home.

These are not minor increases, they are costs that were almost certainly be passed on to the consumers and the end buyers.

My energy rating person also estimated that these changes will only save roughly $200 per year for the owner, which is an ROI that's simply unacceptable acceptable for a property owner.

At the time when housing affordability is already at a critical issue, this code could intentionally shut out middle income families and first-time buyers who want to call a Maperville home.

The implications go far beyond new construction.

Renovation, additions, and routine home improvements could also be greatly impacted by these new codes.

So sustainability and affordability must go hand in hand.

One cannot list exist without the other.

Let's work to try to find a more balanced solution toward being more energy efficient with future homes.

And again, I like the other builders, I pose this uh new stretch code.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next person is Court.

Hi, my name is Court Earhart, 500 East Roosevelt Road in West Chicago.

I'm uh president of Airhart Construction.

We're a second generation builder.

We have built many, many, many homes over the last 61 years in Naperville.

Um I'm also currently chairman of the Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Housing Advocacy Committee, representing over 250 building professionals in our area.

The current energy code is extremely stringent.

The current energy code is extremely efficient.

On the Department of Energy's website, it shows that I'm building under the current energy code is we are using 50% less energy than a home that was built in 1975.

The cost to meet the stretch energy code beyond the current energy code.

Um we reviewed a house that's uh much smaller than my friends here.

It's a 1,900 square foot ranch.

Uh three three-bedroom, two-bed, two-bathroach, two-car garage with a basement.

Um we met with our energy rating company, D.R.

Um we met with our energy rating company DR Nelson and associates to review the stretch energy code uh to price out what the changes required.

Under the prescriptive method, the changes to our homes include insulation changing, insulation changes, framing methods, framing materials, exterior cladding due to a taller structure required by additional uh insulation in the attic properly installed at the eaves, um, as well as electrical enhancements and preparation for future changes.

The costs for these changes were $21,612 and 86 cents.

That was an increased cost per foot for this home of $11.29.

That increased the house price of this home by 5%.

The annual energy savings of this running it through the software was $98 a year.

The energy cost for that home would be $2,213 a year.

So it's less than a 5% savings running through these.

The low return for this significant investment simply is not warranted.

The stretch energy code is a great option under the current energy code.

For those interested in building, that should stay that way.

It should stay as an option.

It should not be the code.

We are already building extremely energy efficient homes.

I think we built a great home 60 years ago.

I think we built a great home 50 years ago.

I think we built a great home 40 years ago, 30, 20, 10.

We build a better home today under the current energy code.

The current energy code is already stringent enough.

We do not need to implement the stretch energy code.

Please don't please do not implement the stretch energy code as the required energy code in Naperville.

The current energy code is already enough.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next person is Greg.

Good afternoon.

My name is Greg Overstreet of Over Street Builders.

I live in Oswego, but we build a bunch of houses in Naperville.

My family has been building houses in Naperville and the surrounding area for more than 60 years.

I'm a third generation builder, and I've been a part of building homes since I was a kid, really, and I've been doing this full-time for over 20 years.

Like a lot of my colleagues here, I share in their concerns for the suggestion that you know that we make uh further energy efficiency changes.

Uh one of my primary concerns is like a lot of these guys have said, we're already building uh great houses, they're they're very energy efficient, and we've reached a point of diminishing returns with this, and and um you know, to get to to continue to increase costs, we're we're really uh getting marginal returns on the investment.

Uh on top of it, there's a lot of uh push for uh electrification in some of these codes, and uh I I think that we're gonna be challenged with that here in Aperville.

Um, I was at the city council meeting last week, and there's talk of uh these these um AI, these stations that that we're looking at, the and I think there's a lot of concerns about how much more impact the data centers are going to be putting on the power grid.

Uh so today my goal is to share with you uh some information like some of some of these other guys to illustrate some of the real world costs and consequences for a new construction home and the proposed energy code increases.

Um like my colleagues, I I ran a house or had my energy rater uh run some numbers on a house that we're currently building in South Naperville in the Hidden Creek subdivision.

Um it it represents it's a very accurate representation of a lot of the homes that we build, averaging 10 to 15 a year in Naperville.

Um so uh for insulation increases and all the framing and and additional work that it's gonna take.

Uh we had about 35,000 in costs, and then on top of that, we had some additional costs to meet some of the uh other criteria for electrification for about 35 3,700 in total.

And then on top of that, we had some additional costs to meet some of the other criteria for electrification for about 35, 3,700 in total.

I kind of looked at it and said, well, a lot of our clients are financing houses.

They'd be looking at close to 40,000 of additional finance costs to build a house with us or to meet these requirements.

So I plugged some assumptions in and looked at uh six percent interest rate and uh 30-year mortgage length and kind of bake this down to a monthly payment, and they would be looking at an additional 235 dollars and some change a month in increased mortgage costs.

Uh now the flip side of that is uh looking at how much money would they save.

Um we work with an energy rater that modeled this house uh based on the way we would currently build it at our current codes and then uh with the increased costs and the increased uh insulation and based on that.

This house would save a total for heating and cooling energy costs of $38 for the year.

So that's $25.67 a month.

So when we look at that, you're saving $25 and spending $235 a month.

Uh and so the point is we never really reach a point where there's a payback.

Uh you you just can run this into the in into indefinite, and and there's never a point where we reach a point where we get our full payback.

So again, I appreciate your time this afternoon and listening to us and I to oppose adopting the stretch codes.

Thank you.

Next person is Cheryl Denton.

Hi, good afternoon.

I want to thank the members of the building review board for the opportunity to provide public comments at today's meeting.

I represent Nycor Gas and the 2.3 million customers.

I'm sorry, let me start off.

Cheryl Denton, NICOR Gas.

My address is 1844 Ferry Road in Naperville.

That's my business address.

Previous resident of Naperville.

Okay, so I'll continue.

Thank you.

I represent Nycor Gas in 2.3 million customers.

We serve with clean, safe, reliable, and affordable natural gas in Illinois.

Natural gas is three times more affordable than electricity, and more than 90% of our homes and businesses in our region depend on natural gas to keep them warm.

These there are several concerning provisions in the Illinois Stretch Energy Code that threatens energy reliability and affordability for Naperville residents and businesses.

One concerning provision is the commercial heat pump multiplier.

This provision penalizes businesses for building with natural gas by requiring costly additional efficiency requirements for new businesses that do not install an electric heat pump for space heating and water heating.

Energy efficiency gas solutions are available for these businesses and natural gas, is most often uh half the cost of electricity.

Another concerning provision is electric ready requirements.

This provision mandates the installation of costly electrical infrastructure where natural gas fire equipment and appliances are to be used in new homes and businesses.

This provision increases construction cost while providing no energy efficiency benefits.

At a time when the electrical grid constraints and surging surging electrical prices are a major concern for Illinois.

Naperville should not be penalizing residents and businesses for choosing natural gas equipment.

Because of the affordability and reliability of natural gas.

These concerning provisions and others in the stretch code will push economic development opportunities away from Naperville, harm small businesses trying to set up shop here and threaten housing and energy affordability for Naperville residents.

A sustainable future for Naperville is possible, and Nycor Gas is committed to providing the city and customers reduce environmental footprint for their uh excuse me, reduce environmental footprint.

We are key partner in the clean energy future and offer our support to the city in considering all energy solutions for a better environment.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Next person is Barbara.

Hi, Barbara Benson, Naperville Resident 2512 Spartina Road.

Good afternoon.

I am the chair of the NES Building and Development Committee, and we just heard a presentation from Mia on the Illinois Stretch Code.

Before I begin my statement, I just wanted to provide some historical context that brings us to this important conversation about the stretch code.

In September 2021, the Naperville City Council unanimously accepted the Naperville Environment and Sustainability Task Force Sustainable 2036 report that was NEST.

The report established a clear goal reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 60% from 2012 levels by the end of 2035.

This report highlighted that over 75% of the city's emissions come from buildings.

So making energy efficiency would be key to achieving this goal.

One of the primary strategies to achieve this reduction is by adopting stronger building and energy codes.

So following that report's release, the city held a sustainability workshop.

And in that workshop, the city adopted a number of the report's recommendations.

You cannot read this, but this is on and was on the city's website of all the objectives that the city said they would try to accomplish.

So four of those are these.

The first one was update the Naperville Building Code to incrementally achieve net zero by 2030 or sooner.

Incentivize renewable energy installations or projects that go beyond code beginning in 2025, requiring renewable energy on site.

We know that's not happening.

Encourage third-party verified rating systems that include significant carbon emissions like LEED and FIS.

Establish building performance standards and conducting construction performance testing to measure as built energy efficiency in every future remodel build-out or new construction project.

So by adopting the stretch code, we would be able to fulfill some of these recommendations.

We know the city is currently navigating several challenging decisions related to energy usage, including the city's energy supplier contract, the adoption of the new building and energy codes, and the development of energy-intensive projects like data centers.

The discussion today is focusing specifically on building residential and energy codes.

So for the past few months, I'll remind you NEST has given public comments to this board in support of the stretch code.

We have provided an overview of the code.

We have spoken about its benefits and highlighted how it can improve indoor and outdoor air quality while saving residents and businesses money and future proofing our bills, our buildings.

By recommending the adoption of the Illinois Stretch Energy Code to City Council, you take a crucial step toward achieving our collective sustainability goals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there any additional public testimony?

Come on up, please.

Hello, I'm Bruce Jones, 1124 Langley Circle, Naperville, Illinois, longtime resident and uh volunteer for the City of Naperville sustainability efforts.

Longtime resident and uh volunteer for the City of Naperville sustainability efforts.

I'm here to support an exposition that the City of Naperville should adopt the proposed stretch codes.

And my focus is really on the commercial codes since I'm the transportation chairman for NES.

Commercial building, specifically the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code, IECC, appendix CG for commercial electric vehicle charging stations.

When a business renovates or builds a new parking lot or garage, that's the time to lay in the infrastructure for electric vehicle supply equipment or charging stations.

When the ground is dug up and there's dirt on the ground and they've already got the trenches laid and the conduits in the ground, that's the time to put in the infrastructure for charging stations.

Because down the road, many of these businesses will want to add charging stations for their customers and their employees, and it's roughly five to ten times more expensive to retrofit, retrench, recut, re-landscape later when they want to add them.

So why do we want to add charging when the parking lot is being constructed or renovated?

Building owners will save money.

A small investment now up front is better than expensive retrofits later.

And there are still federal rebates available up to 30% through June of next year, and local incentives by the Naperville electric utility of $500 to install charging stations.

Company employees save money.

So if they can't charge at home, the only other really good place to charge is at work.

So if they drive to work and they can park and charge their car while they're at work, that helps them and the businesses because it also helps retain the employees.

It's kind of one of those sticky perks.

Electric vehicles are not as expensive as people might think.

The electric vehicles today are just as uh have the same price as gas-powered uh sedans.

So the prices for all electric vehicles is tending to come down, and internal combustion engine cars are going up over time.

I also have a presentation I can send to you or give to you, which gives a lot of the background for these uh numbers.

So Jeff or somebody on the team can just let me know how to best you know send that to you.

So electric vehicles also have a lower total cost of ownership and are cheaper to operate.

Lower maintenance, their battery prices are coming down, they're less expensive to drive, and even here in Naperville with our electric supply being mainly coal-based, you still save one-third to one quarter of a pound of carbon dioxide driving an electric vehicle than driving a gas car.

The Illinois uh EPA still offers electric vehicle rebates for new or used electric vehicles with the funding window.

There's one coming up on October 28th.

So people can drive electric vehicles even if they're not uh rich, and the people in Naperville who work here can certainly afford electric vehicles.

So let's help Naperville be prepared.

My recommendation is to add the stretch codes that contain the commercial EVSE, electric vehicle supply equipment or charging station ordinances.

This will also help meet our elect our environmental goals.

As I mentioned before, you still save carbon dioxide by driving electric vehicles over ice vehicles.

Thanks.

Thank you, Bruce.

Is there anybody else?

All right.

With that, I'll open it up to uh QA from the building review board.

Anyone have any questions?

I got one, Anise.

Um from all the builders who spoke, thank you for your time to come out on that.

Um I thought there was an interesting dynamic on the insulation versus the electrification part of the home.

If any of you can provide the bullying review board with the breakdown of those different costs, that would be appreciated.

So thank you.

I had a question for John Grossman.

Um, just to clarify, I think you said there was a savings over a 30-year period of 8,800.

Is that is that correct?

That sounds all right.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

I'd also like to thank the contractors for coming.

Looks like this the costs are anywhere between 20 and you know, about 40,000 in addition.

So that's why I wanted to get that correction from John.

So thank you.

Thank you all.

All right.

Any uh there is no old business for today.

Any new business?

Do any members have any new new business to discuss?

Nope.

Hearing none, we will adjourn.

Uh I would entertain a motion for adjournment.

Anybody second?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any nays?

All right.

Meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.