Good evening.

Welcome to the December 2nd Neighborville City Council meeting roll call.

Worley.

Here.

Gibson.

Here.

Holds out.

Here.

Jane.

Here.

Kelly.

McBroom.

Here.

Cyan.

Yeah.

White.

Wilson.

Here.

Councilman Holzauer, can I get a motion to allow Councilman Wilson to participate by phone?

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to allow Councilman Wilson to uh participate in the meeting remotely by telephone.

Councilman Kelly, is there a second?

Second Kelly.

All those in favor of allowing Councilman Wilson to participate by phone, sign aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes.

Councilman Wilson, can you hear us okay?

I can.

Thank you, Mayor.

Especially in the meeting.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

My pledge of the topic to the flag of the United States of America.

Before we begin the night, I have sad news to share with all of you.

Fortunately, last night, a city contractor removing snow from our platform at the downtown Naperville train station was tragically struck by a train and succumbed to his injuries.

And ask for a brief moment of silence.

Thank you.

First on our agenda is public forum.

As we start the public forum, I'd like to remind everyone of the citizen participation rules in 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 jeering.

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

If this occurs, you'll 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, signs must not block any other audience members' view.

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

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

It gives a visual cue when the three minutes are expiring.

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

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

If a speaker's name is called and they 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 ask follow-up questions.

Mr.

Schatz, please call the first speaker.

There is one written comment in public forum that's been posted to the website.

We have three speakers.

Ashley Pennick is our first speaker, followed by Greg Hubert and Ted Barlard.

So would all the speakers please move to the front row, and we'll start with Ms.

Pennock.

Mayor and Council, I'm Ashley Pennock.

I hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

Moving right along with food on my mind.

What's your creme brulee, French onion soup, and caramel all have in common?

They're all best prepared with the power of gas.

Let me explain.

After graduating college in 2001, my career path took another direction when I started working in the hospitality industry.

My first job was at a corporate restaurant in the Fox Valley Mall.

It led me to having every job a manageable host, server, busser, bartender, manager, line cook, and dishwasher.

Teamwork makes a restaurant a success.

And what I've observed is that all chefs I know prefer gas power ranges.

For instance, when making creme brulee, chefs use a blowtorch to carmelise the sugar.

Take out the crust that we all love so much.

With French onion soups, chefs use something called a salamander, a big broiler powered by gas right above the gas range, which gives the toasted cheese look on top of a soup.

A candy burner is a huge single gas range used to make the caramel, usually done in a big pot.

It's all about gas.

Patrons enjoy our restaurants.

I've been in the restaurant industry over half my life.

Every chef, I've every restaurant I've worked with prefers gas.

Some people say it's safer to cook with electric.

I would argue that's not the case.

Think about it.

When you have an electric range and you turn off the power, does the burner get cold faster?

No.

And you can say very easily, burn yourself.

I know because I've done it at a friend's house.

Plus, with electric ranges, a chef can't control the temperature as with a gas range.

Whenever I turned off the gas at work, I knew it was off.

Most likely any prospective restaurant business wanting to open in Naperville will want a gas hookup, not electric.

But if policies go the wrong way, government mandates and regulations could restrict gas.

All of a sudden, that potential restaurant business could disappear because of the government mandated barriers to entry.

And those restaurants that mess comply with the new regulations have to spend thousands of dollars to meet new regulations.

Those costs will be passed on to the consumer.

We complain about prices of goods and services being too expensive, but it's forced over regulated mandates that increase costs rather than the reasonable rule of law advocated like by philosophers such as John Locke, Ayn Rand, and two of my favorite economists, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell, who is brilliant still at the age of 95.

Every restaurant owner knows that the smallest increase in price makes a big difference to already small margins.

Once lastly, maybe I missed it, but I don't recall very many people saying, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Greg Hubert.

Good evening.

I'm Greg Hubert, still Greg Hubert, 35-year resident of Naperville, who has continued to attend IMEA board meetings for many years.

I'm also one of the co-founders of CleanEnergy Naperville.org.

This afternoon, I emailed all of you a copy of IMEA's denial of the request for a public copy of IMEA's financial projections for the first IMEA transmission ownership project.

This project was approved in October for a $25 million capital investment, and it will earn revenue to be used to offset the transmission costs that IMEA pays for the members' use of the PJM and MISO transmission system.

From the IMEA board meeting packet posted yesterday, we now see another board resolution for this Thursday to approve 50 million for two more transition transmission ownership projects.

Please know that I appreciate you already have a lot on your IMEA plate with the contract decisions.

But again, in this case, we have no publicly provided financial cost benefits, assumptions, risks, basic transparency and accountability stuff that I think we would ask of our own Naperville staff for our own Naperville projects requiring $50 million in capital.

We don't have public information on the potential impact on Naperville of additional IMEA long-term debt.

Assuming that's the path that IMEA chooses for this 50 million plus the previous 25 million.

And what are the opportunity costs?

The lost opportunities.

How does another 50 million impact opportunities to invest in battery storage, which would be expected to lower both transmission and capacity cost?

This is just a partial list.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, City Council members.

I'm Ted Bellard, Naperville resident.

I'd like to share my frustration about the lack of transparency and good governance.

Naperville is experiencing with our current IMEA power sales contract.

Six and a half weeks ago, on October 15th, IMEA posted an agenda and information packet on their website, giving notice that in eight days, their board of directors would be asked to approve a 25 million dollar investment for joint ownership of transmission with Amram pro forma financials detailing the proposed investment had been shared with their directors, but not with the public nor with the city council members who represent us.

Even if it had been shared, there would not have been enough calendar time for council to direct our IMEA representative how to vote.

And following the vote, when asked for records justifying the investment, IMEA's general counsel denied the request due to an exemption.

IME enjoys from the Freedom of Information Act.

The IMEA is about to do it again.

The day before Thanksgiving, six days ago, an agenda and information packet was posted on IMEA's website giving notice of an upcoming vote in two days this Thursday.

Their board of directors will be asked to approve a notional investment, a notional investment of approximately 50 million dollars for additional transmission projects.

Financial information justifying the investment has not been shared with the public.

And you council members cannot direct our representative how to vote on this investment.

But I hope you would share your comments.

Are these good investments?

Are they the best investments the IMEA can make with our money?

Well, we don't get to this to decide on how IMEA spends our money.

We don't get to see their financial and justification, and neither do our representatives, because IMEA says so.

Will they do it again?

And again and again.

City Council members, are you content with the oversight IMEA affords you regarding the commitments they make on your behalf?

Are you content with their transparency?

Are we ratepayers and voters to simply accept this?

Thank you all for your service and for listening.

Thank you.

Our next portion is the city council portion of public forum.

I want to start by introducing a new member of our professional staff.

That is Mr.

Dan Randolph.

Dan, can you wave for the audience?

Dan is our new director of public works.

Dan's worked over 20 years.

Um I'm sorry, Dan has had over 20 years of civil engineering and public works management experience.

Most recently is the assistant director of engineering and public works for the village of Schaumburg.

So we welcome Dan to our city, and we wish you all the luck in the world.

Thank you very much.

Mayor Worley, it's a pleasure uh to work for a city of Naperville's reputation.

Um the previous director, uh Dick DeBlinski.

He has, you know, he served the community for many years, and I intend to build upon his legacy of excellent and reliable customer service.

Um it's a pleasure.

Thank you.

Very good.

Now, City Council members is a reminder for the coin council members if three minutes to speak during public forum can speak up to two times.

Councilman Holzauer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I had follow-up questions that actually apply to both Mr.

Hubert and Mr.

Boulard.

Would it be possible, Mayor, if they were to both come out of the podium?

You want them both at the same time?

Uh that'd be great, Mayor.

All right, thank you, gentlemen.

So just kind of summing up.

Um, I think both of you raised concerns that it's fairly late in the game that uh the public kind of got notice that there would be a fairly major expenditure being considered at the IMEA board, difficulty getting some of the details he would have liked to see from that because of foyer exemptions.

Um sitting here fairly shortly before the board would actually make a decision on it.

Um so I guess the question I have is is what is the ask?

What's the actual ask that you would like to see from council?

My ask for you tonight is to voice your opinion because as we learned from Mr.

DeSanto two years ago here, this is not on the formal agenda, and so you you cannot you cannot vote on this on this matter.

And uh our electorate director uh Brian, he has the authority to make these decisions at IMEA, and uh so what we are what we face tonight is we we face a discussion, I think, and that's what uh that's what I asked.

I I have made my personal ask of the electric director.

I hope that you will discuss and also ask, but I also hope that you will discuss this issue that we started to discuss two years ago.

How does council have a role in substantive and strategic IMEA matters?

You are our board of directors, you represent the you run you are the elected officials that represent the people in in public power.

So Ted.

Um simple suggestion, uh uh former request of the IMEA to post before voting.

Um the agenda, the packet, uh instead of a week ahead of the board of directors' vote, why not three weeks?

So that we get to see that too, and we have a chance to to weigh in.

You all have a chance to weigh in.

Okay, and I have a couple of of uh thoughts on this, but actually first I kind of just wanted to get um Mayor, if it's permissible, Mr.

Groth, to just provide some commentary on what the project is in general terms and um what the cost benefit is.

Director Groth.

Certainly, Brian Growth Electric Utility Director.

Uh the projects that the projects that are being proposed are two 765 KV transmission lines.

Um IMEA is proposing to be a three percent owner of those transmission lines um at a cost of approximately 50 million dollars.

Um, when the last transmission line was approved by the IMEA board, I asked for a cost benefit analysis that was shown to the board of directors in closed session.

Um, you know, that showed that there was benefit to the Naperville ratepayers within the existing IMEA contract timeline, and so I was supportive of that.

Um we all see that transmission costs are rising, and this is one way to hedge transmission costs.

I have not yet seen a cost benefit analysis of this project.

Um, and until I see one, um, I will reserve my vote.

Okay, thank you.

Um so just to provide some of my um comments on this.

And if you've been watching council for the last few years, you know I'm I'm not really a fan of a renewal of the IMEA contract or anything like that.

But I will say with regard to this one specific issue.

Um so I I do think it's a reasonable point.

Hey, publish your stuff earlier that way the public knows where public dollars are going.

I think that's a totally reasonable request if this had been out here two months ago.

It's just a better look, and I think everybody comes out ahead.

Having said that, you know, I um I feel like our job is strategic oversight, right?

None of us are subject matter experts.

Um, none of us have the degrees or you know, expertise, I think, in the really specific details of things like transmission wires, right?

Um, so I think realistically, even if we were to negotiate, you know, different transparency provisions, there may be some benefit with with extra early public notice.

I don't foresee a lot of worlds in which I'd be up here second-guessing um our staff's recommendations on a technical issue like this.

So I do want to put this out there.

Um, and I guess to come back to the overall point, um, I am a critic of the idea of renewing with IMEA.

For me, this is not personally the biggest negotiation point.

I have a much bigger focus on things like the carbon uh footprint of IMEA or um the lack of a commitment to pricing or the pressure to renew far in advance of industry norms, those are things I'm really focused on.

Um and that's not at all to to shut down what you're saying.

I think you brought up a great point with how things are timed, but I do want to give you that honest feedback because I you know I think you deserve it.

Um second thing, very much unrelated to this.

Um I had the opportunity to um visit with a group of downtown business owners in Aurora actually today, um, just through work.

And um they're more or less starting up an entity similar to what we have in Naperville Downtown Naperville Alliance, or I should say rejuvenate.

Um, and I really appreciated the opportunity to kind of see all the work that has gone into what we have built in this community and seeing it in another community, and each community has different ideas and a different vibe.

Prior councils have done, Katie Wood at DNA, all of the board members do, um, because we have a really special downtown, and and um a lot of people put a lot of time into it, and it's a lot of it's behind the scenes.

So just want to give a shout out to them.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

And before the the speakers leave, does anybody else have questions for the speakers?

Um okay.

So go ahead and stand by, guys, because we're we'll get to you.

Uh Councilman McRoe.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh first of all, Mr.

Randolph, congratulations and and welcome.

Look forward to getting to know you and working with you.

Um before I get to you guys, uh, thank you for coming and speaking.

Um, I just wanted to click Director Groth, I at the end of your statement, uh, it sounded like something conflicted.

This recent uh transaction you said you have not voted on yet, or you have not seen a cost benefit analysis, so you have not voted.

That's correct.

The executive board of IMEA will meet tomorrow, and the full board will meet on Thursday.

Okay, and you're waiting to see a cost benefit analysis.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um so while while I disagree with uh councilman Holsaur on on the bigger issue, IMEA, I I think we're we'd be putting ourselves at tremendous risk long term uh financially uh for future generations by not renewing.

Um I actually agree with just about everything else that that he said in this his statement.

So um yeah, I appreciate uh transparency.

I I I fight for transparency all the time.

Um, but I I don't exactly know what you'd be suggesting.

Um I I have no interest in in Mike or or or the expertise.

I don't think anyone here does uh and and kind of micromanaging decisions that IMA board makes, but um you know if you had some suggestion if there's some kind of dollar amount or or some kind of criteria where uh member communities should should weigh in, but uh I I can't imagine that we would be uh weighing in on each and every decision that uh that IMEA uh the members will be making.

So do you have any criteria where you'd say, hey, this is such a big uh or or maybe they're getting ready to sign a 20-year contract on something, or uh, but I I I think that you you probably need to narrow that down on what your expectations would be there.

I'll take a stab, but I won't I won't put a dollar criteria on it, Councilman McBroom.

I'll I'll refer back to the conversation December of 2023, where Councilman Kelly um made the specific uh I believe it was the specific recommendation that council and staff discuss this issue and and and come up with a solution for where council should be involved in substantive and strategic issues here.

I don't want to be prescriptive, I don't want to tell you how to do your job.

Uh, but I do personally believe, and I think many others do, that this public power model doesn't work if council our elected representatives aren't involved in these substantive and strategic issues.

Public power depends on that.

So I I would ask that you guys initiate a conversation with staff.

I would be happy to participate in that.

I believe Ted would also, but I I I hope that's an adequate answer for you, Councilman.

Councilman White.

I'm not sure if uh Ted if you were uh just want to follow on.

Uh you don't have to be uh an expert in um uh electricity or uh the grid in order to read uh a pro forma financial statement.

And if it's a significant investment, and I think 50 million dollars, uh 25 million dollars, you know, you all probably deserve the right, the responsibility of picking a clip level if you want, but simple things like uh return on investment, payback period, um what other investments are you considering in the next 12 months?

Do they have higher financial justifications?

Um that sort of thing to give you guys give you representatives uh the benefit of choosing which decisions to weigh in on right now uh with eight days before the vote, you really don't have the opportunity, and you deserve the opportunity.

Okay, uh thanks for that, gentlemen.

Uh I did have a question though.

Um so when we're looking at the transmission piece of this, uh a lot of this is it sound like most of it might have been uh with with MISO.

Uh is that correct?

Um Mr.

Groff can that's correct.

That is these are in MISO service territory.

Yeah, and that that's and and I see the point.

Uh thank thank you, Brian.

We are you know with PJM.

So i i I I get some of the concern well when it comes to maybe and and I guess we could say that's the cost of doing business.

Um I don't know, maybe we're we're looking at putting uh the the overpass off of North Award Road.

And if I live in South Naperville, I may be wondering why am I having to pay for some area that I'm not actually uh driving down.

So maybe it falls under that category, but I do see uh your point in that maybe we should have a you know some say so at least voice our opinion uh as far as uh that amount of money going uh basically in an area that's doesn't really involve Naperville.

So thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

You're coming up as a different name on my screen tonight.

So um thank you, Mayor.

Uh thank you to all the speakers who came tonight.

Um I really appreciate Mr.

Hubert and Mr.

Bullard coming.

Um I agree with my colleagues that I am not an energy expert.

I defer to Director Groth on most of this stuff.

Um but I do think your comments tonight bring up a really salient point for me when it comes to the IMEA contract.

Um that even if we as a council were able to deliberate on these items in a timely fashion, open up to the public as we would the issues that come before us um and work with Director Groth on what we would like to see his vote being.

At the end of the day, we're still only one of 32 votes on that board, correct?

Director Groth.

It weighted sometimes.

That's correct.

Yes, with the weighted sometimes.

Okay.

So um even if we spent that time deliberating up here that this wasn't in the best interest of Naperville, we can't really do much about it.

And that I don't mean that to be defeatist.

Um that has been part of my uh concerns with the IMEA contract and particularly extending it through 2055.

Um we've heard that you know we are IMEA, we are a voting member, but um one 30 second of a vote on an item like this.

That's what do you say 25 50 million, Director Groth?

Sorry.

Uh these two these two projects are 50 million.

50 million in a contract that you know the impact of this, the cost of this would make its way down to Naperville ratepayers.

Um that's a 30-year contract.

Uh there's other options out there that don't give us such you know no control over these big investments that we end up paying for.

Um so I really appreciate you coming tonight and framing the issue the way you did.

Thank you.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have a couple follow-up questions for Director Groth, um, if I could.

Um one, I think I know the answer, but just to confirm, would this particular vote be a one out of thirty-two, or is it a weighted vote?

I believe it would be a weighted vote.

Okay.

And um I think I heard the answer, but just to confirm, it sounds like there's executive session tomorrow.

Is that when you expect to see the financials would be tomorrow?

Yes.

And I I would expect to see them both days.

And then you would be taking the vote on the city's behalf on Thursday.

That's correct.

Okay, and and what is that process look look like?

Do you I mean we're not gonna have council feedback certainly within a 24 hour span?

Do you connect with DLT?

Is that do you have authority solely to see the financials Wednesday take a vote Thursday, whichever direction you think is best, or how does that process play out?

I I typically take the information and make the best decision on behalf of the residents and the ratepayers of the citizens of Naperville, right?

That's my that's my primary goal here is to do right by all of the ratepayers and to make sure that the financials and the cost benefit analysis make sense for this for the residents and the ratepayers.

Okay, and then uh if you when you see the cost benefit analysis, will that be the first time that you're gonna see how it would be paid for?

Do you know already what is this gonna be an upfront cost like Naperville would have a third of 50 million that we've got to pay in 2026, or would this be a bond, or do you know yet how it would be paid for?

It's not clear exactly how it would be paid for.

Quite honestly, these these projects move quite quickly.

Um for example, this one is part of MISO's Tranch 2.1 project, um, which still has not been even approved by MISO, right?

So um timelines are a bit more nebulous on this one than they were on the last one that was in that was voted on uh in October.

That was a line between Princeton and Peru, Illinois, with a definitive delivery timeline and a definitive cost uh to the extent that it's known, right?

I mean, there's still some construction cost risk um in these types of projects.

Thank you.

So I I hear the speakers' concerns generally, and Greg, what you talked about a couple years ago, we have not really gotten there, so I think that might be worthy of conversation at some point.

For this particular project, we're we're on a super super short time frame.

I don't know if it's even possible.

We're certainly not going to meet and be able to give formal feedback, but would it be possible to give a paragraph summary of what you learned tomorrow and and run that through legal or CMO to get to council uh in case we have individual feedback on Wednesday?

Uh certainly to the extent that I can, as certain items will be discussed in close session.

Sure.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I moved to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Motion a second.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion passes.

90.

Councilman Wilson, did you say aye?

I did.

Aye.

Okay.

Making sure we heard you.

Thank you.

I moved to approve the consent agenda with comments on I-25 and removing I-24.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Ms.

Schatz.

Question on I-25.

Oh.

The uh question on the I-25.

You want to call that one?

I 25 is a recommendation to pass the resolution approving execution of a cost sharing agreement for 1224 as we go road.

Okay.

And this question is for Director Blennis.

Could you explain the process for how that works?

And in this case, what the owners of the home are paying for and why there's this large check that's going to get cut back for some of the additional services that get put in and how the recapture works for residents that tap on later.

Sure, I'd be happy to mayor.

Darrell Blennis, Water Utilities Director.

What was it included in the write-up?

Um was the concept of a recapture, and that's what we will be doing in this instance.

This is a common development tool or um strategy uh used by Naperville in the past.

Essentially, when you have a development of a parcel of land that requires the extensive utilities that will leapfrog um vacant parcels or not participating parcels.

This is a common tool.

Essentially, the property owner here would be paying their proportional share of the Santa Resura line.

And the city will recapture its cost in the future as future customers tap into the line.

Hence, we will recapture our cost at that time.

So that's the process.

So this is common and it's not out of the ordinary, and it's a strategy that we used in the past very successfully.

Okay.

Thank you.

So the motion will include everything except I-24, which we are pulling at this point.

Mr.

Schatz, please read the consent agenda as a minute.

Mayor.

Councilman Kelly.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

A further comment or question on I-25, if I could.

Sure, go ahead.

Um follow-up question for Director Blennis.

Um couple of questions.

One is you said that we've used recapture successfully in other instances.

It sounds like the ones that you just spoke about were developers as opposed to an individual homeowner or future individual homeowners.

Um I'm just trying to I guess one question is have we done something similar to this situation where you've had the agreement because of one individual property and then had recapture from neighboring individual property owners?

Yes, we have.

Um I'm aware of one down neighbor plainfield, Jan, is that correct?

Uh we've also done one, I believe, um, over by the high school, Naperville Central in the past.

So this is something we've done before.

Um it's also common, especially on the edges of our system.

Uh, when you have uh individuals building lots that um aren't exactly adjacent to our utilities, so this is a very common approach.

And we've done this by with just one lot before, just like this.

So it is a common practice.

How many uh neighboring lots would be subject to the recapture on the map?

There are several.

We would be repaid the floor.

That's typically how in the past for recaptures on lift stations, pump stations.

Um had those in existence, but not in any uh agreements, but developers and other builders have abided by our information regarding previous recaptures that are required for that infrastructure.

If I could mayor two two follow-up questions, sure.

Um, I I guess one uh just to I don't want to or too too hard on this, but that specific question.

I guess what I'm really getting at is say we approve this agreement that's really for 1224 uswegal road.

Would we at the same time be recording something against the other properties across the street to ensure that if and when they turn over a put a future buyer of those properties knows that they would have an obligation to pay the recapture fee to the city?

I may lean on our city attorney on our past methods that we've done to enforce recaptures.

And just to clarify, these would be homes that would potentially need to opt in to annexation into Naperville.

That's that would be minor saying.

Counselor.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh you know, I'm not positive, but I think that we may record this on the other properties.

However, even if we don't, it would be a condition of any future annexations.

We can't impose the need on them until they seek to have our utilities or seek to annex with that time.

This condition would be into play as the condition of the annexation.

I don't know if um uh Ted over there knows about uh whether we're recording this on the properties, but either way, we would make sure that we're recovering at the appropriate time.

And you guys know more about that than I do.

My concern is say it's 20 or 30 years down the road.

I just don't want that to get lost in the shuffle if you record with the counter recorder's office.

That that'll be there, and everybody will see it.

The city, the homeowner, everyone, title company.

If we don't do that, and I I don't I don't know how it would happen exactly that if you get lost in the shuffle, but that would be my concern if we have to wait many, many years and we've paid this money in 2026, and then we don't get it back one day.

So I don't know if Ted or legal or water, I don't know who it would be, but if there's some way to make us a little more comfortable, that it would with certainty be found down the road, and then the other follow-up question would be is there any upper time limit on this where if properties don't incorporate that either 1224 or someone how do we ensure we get paid if they choose to not incorporate for decades potentially across the street?

That's an excellent question.

Um I don't believe so in that case.

We have uh a time limit on this.

We're enforcing recaptures in the city on.

I know the one for the polo club was in the late 90s late 1990s.

That was done.

We were doing recaptures on the Northeast Waterworks, and that was in the 1980s.

Um so these do stand the test of time and and they do stick around quite a long time.

Um we do track them internally to make sure that when they come in for the pull permits that they're aware of their obligations, financial obligations to develop that lot.

Um so we do keep good track of it.

We've uh I think we're attaching it to our asset information in our GIS system as well, uh, so we that in the future when that information is necessary on that line, we see all the potential recaptures that are required for future development.

So we do a good job of organizing it internally.

Uh to your point of you know, recording against the properties.

You know, we have we've had those discussions with legal on the best mechanisms to either we do this by ordinance, we do this by recording against the properties.

So there are other tools available to us, and we'll talk with Ted and the C Turn's office, make sure we do the best one here.

All right, thank you.

Shots.

Approval of the budget workshop minutes of September 29th, October 28th, and November 10th, 2025.

Approval of the regular city council meeting minutes of November 18th, 2025.

Approval of the city council meeting schedule for December 2025, January and February 2026.

Approval of the award of single source procurement for smart works renewal to Harris Computer Systems for an amount not to exceed 137,185 and 68 cents for a one-year term.

Approval of the award of single source procurement for electric switch cure to SNC Electric Company, the Weldley Lamont group for an amount not to exceed 652,000, 71 dollars and 24 cents for a one-year term.

Approval of the order of the bid for Bonama Woods lift station rehabilitation to Aries Incorporated for an amount not to exceed 925,000 dollars plus a 3% contingency.

Approval of the award of the bid for River Mist Force Main rehabilitation tomorrow sewer construction for an amount not to exceed 419,750 plus a 5% contingency.

Approval of the award of option year one to the RFP for Riverwalk Design Consultant to Engineering Resource Associates for an amount not to exceed 400,000.

Approval of the award of option year one to the contract for tree removal and stump grinding to D Ryan Tree and Landscape Service LLC and Steve Piper and Sons for an amount not to exceed 200,000 for one year term.

Approval of the award of option year number two to the contract for tree trimming, tree removal and disposal of debris to Lewis Tree Service for an amount not to exceed 241,000 16 dollars.

Approval of the award of option year number three to the contract for fire and security alarm, fire suppression and extinguisher maintenance services to Fox Valley Fire and Safety Company for an amount not to exceed 110,000 dollars.

Approval of the award of option year number three to the contract for municipal center security services to Talon Premier Security for an amount not to exceed 150,000 dollars.

Approval of the award of option year number four to the contract for electrician services to Volt Electric for an amount not to exceed 115,000 dollars.

Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for traffic signal and street light maintenance to meet incorporated for an amount not to exceed $66,033.86 cents.

Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement to Dell Marketing LP for an amount not to exceed $50,000.

Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for heating, ventilation, air conditioning and dehumidification services to Brie reheating and cooling for an amount not to exceed $53,000.

Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for land mobile radio consultant services to Tuesa Consulting Services for an amount not to exceed 44,250 dollars.

Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for 2025 microsurfacing to AC pavement striping for an amount not to exceed $13,070 and sixty six cents.

Regulating the operation classification and safety of e-bikes, e-scooters and other personal mobility devices.

There are two speakers the first speaker is Dick Page the second speaker is Randall Case.

Good evening I'm Dick Page I've lived in Lapoville for some 50 years and in that time I've done a lot of biking in the on the roads and trails around here.

But the time is coming when uh an e-bike looks more and more uh attractive and the type of e-bike that I would like to buy is one that is very similar to the bike that I ride now but the problem with that is that turns out to be a class three e-bike and if the ordinance isn't uh changed I wouldn't be allowed to use it on the paths in the trails.

Now thing is I understand it the the the purpose really of this uh ordinance is to enhance safety on the bike trails as one of the purposes there and certainly that's that's something I thoroughly agree with.

But the thing is here you know the bike that I ride now that that can go as fast as the class three e-bike which is being uh banned from the trails according to the ordinance based on its speed of 28 miles an hour rather than the class one or two at 20 miles an hour.

But my bike can do that well maybe I can't do it anymore but you know some people certainly can ride it at 20 miles an hour 25 maybe even 30.

So I really don't see how safety is enhanced in this case of not allowing class three e-bikes on the trail when there are plenty of other bikes that can do exactly the same thing non-e-bikes and they would still be there.

And then there's another point I'd like to make you know one of the things you'd look for in safety enhancement I would think is consequences of collisions, crashes, something like that.

But but again you shouldn't do that based solely on the speed of a bike I mean the weight of the bike comes into this too and that's very important.

And in fact the consequences of an accident are based equally on both the speed and the weight and so a class one I can tell you class one or two bikes they can weigh considerably more than the class three bike that I'm would like to buy.

But I think what would enhance the safety is making the public more aware that in fact there's a 15 mile an hour speed limit on the trail.

Now most people I've talked to don't seem to know that.

I didn't know it until I read the ordinance.

So I would suggest and what I'd really like to you to consider tonight is to the speaker's time is up.

Just wrap it up.

So thank you.

Is to amend the ordinance.

So you have class one, two, and three bikes on the trail, but nevertheless post speed limit post down the trail so people know there is a 15 mile an hour speed limit.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Randall Keys.

Good evening, evening City Council.

Um you know I've been here before, and uh as uh councilwoman Mary Gibson knows that she uh made the comment early at the beginning when I spoke in public uh forum before this even became an issue with the e-bikes and e-scooters saying that it takes a while, but things do happen and things do progress.

So I'm glad to see that this is up for vote tonight.

And I wanted to say that I full I do support the council voting in favor of the e-bike and e-scooter ordinance.

And as someone with military training and experience in lesson plan development, um I understand how to create a effective educational programs, and I'm again I've said it before, I'm volunteering my services to help develop and deliver this safety curriculum in a way that will be both engaging and impactful for our community, especially for the parents and the children, because I think that's a big deal in is the education, and I've heard other people other you know council people talking about that also about education.

You know, that's the big thing is educating our community, and that's something that I would like to be up front with, and I am more than willing to donate my time and make the effort in making sure you know to help facilitate it and assist people in you know just helping with the public safety and to help in the any way I can.

I've spoken to Chief Ayres about it and made my uh voice my opinion with that as well.

And it's important for public safety, and I'm committed to helping ensure success, and I think the only way to do that is through quality education and training.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I know we have some council members with some questions, but before we go into discussion, I'd like to have uh councilman white make the motion on I 24.

We'll get the second, then we'll have discussion.

Sure.

Um I move to pass the ordinance amending section 11-4 of Naperville municipal code regulating the operation classification and safety of e-bikes, e-scooters, and other mobility devices.

Councilman McCullough.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on I-24 discussion.

Councilman McBroom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so I think this ordinance, I think all of us have heard uh from a lot of people in the community.

Uh I think we can just be frank about what what the concern was, and I I think it was junior high kids whizzing through neighborhoods, um, whether it be for the safety of the child or or the concern that you know we might run one over when we're uh pulling out of our our driveway.

Um and so it would be a in light of that, and and I understand those concerns.

Um we know of a kid that was hit by uh a car, so um it would be a difficult thing for me not to support.

But my my understanding when the ordinance was drafted, and you know, when I hear class one, two, three, I sorry, I don't I don't own any bike, so I I kind of I kind of glaze over.

I I guess I should know those um classifications better, but my understanding was the ordinance was meant to mirror uh or codify what the state law already had in place with a couple deviations, and I thought, and I chief, if you could correct me or legal can correct me.

I I thought the only deviations were the age limit that you had to be 16 uh to ride these uh um these vehicles, and and then there was some parental parental accountability.

Um, but I didn't think anyone else would be affected.

So uh Mr.

Page, we received the email uh to council with a almost identical concern that you had that um uh you wouldn't be able to ride on the on the trails.

So uh are there other uh deviations or um you know is is there a bigger impact than just kind of looking out for the safety of uh these these younger riders in town um that that we are impacting um some you know adults and and senior citizens who who like to use the the trails for for e-bikes.

Is that something chief you can answer or uh legal?

Chief Aries.

Yeah, I can take it, and Mr.

DeSanto can hit anything.

I mean, so in turn miss, in terms of the deviation, if we want to use that, the one restriction we the other one that you had kind of hinted at the class three, the law does give the law does not outlaw it on multi-use paths.

So I think for Mr.

Page's and everybody else that's been asking about the class three and multi-use paths.

The bulk of multi-use paths in Naperville that people would ride on would be park district, forest preserve.

Naperville does have multi-use paths as well, but the bulk of it are gonna be those two.

Two bans were already in place by both of those organizations of class three bikes on their paths.

So we don't control where the what the park district does or doesn't ban on their paths, or the forest preserve.

So if we did vary from that, that would create some confusion, I would think.

For well, am I on park district property?

Am I on forest preserved property, and or am I on City and Naperville property?

And eight miles an hour, while it doesn't seem like a lot, is still significantly faster than 20 miles an hour.

So there's two pieces to that.

Um we we banned it, our team from legal and the PD and Ted that have met on this, banned it for the consistency, so our riders consistently understand where their bikes can be on uh within the paths.

Um, and I don't think you can underestimate that speed.

The other piece, councilman, that is different than the laws the parental accountability that we have added for the ordinance for minors.

And the last thing I would say is it is not just our young riders that are creating hazards.

We had a uh crash in the downtown a couple weeks ago where the rider wasn't a young teen on a sidewalk on an e-bike.

So it's I would say more problems than not are the younger riders, but I would hate to label this as just a young rider problem, sir.

Council Balzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I uh saw the first email that Mr.

Page sent, uh, which was I don't know, 10 days ago or so, and I forwarded that to legal and city staff.

I think they sent a response to um Dr.

Sims who's sitting back there, just um provided me his written comments, and I ran them by the city manager.

Um so Mr.

Krieger, I was hoping that you could um comment.

I know Chief Aries covered some of it, but especially if you could focus on this consistency piece that we talked about before the meeting.

Uh Mr.

Kruger.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um absolutely.

Um as uh Chief Aries discussed, um, you know, we had a uh a multi-departmental team review uh including uh legal as well as TED as well as the police department.

And um one of the focuses because there are so many different categories and classes of bikes is uh consistency.

So someone's not riding a trail for 20 feet and it's legal here, and for the next 50 feet it's gonna be illegal.

Um we use that combined with um the state rules as well as um the uh ordinances put in place in other jurisdictions so that there would be a consistency um to at least minimize the amount of confusion between the different rule between the different rules from municipality to municipality.

Right, and just to follow up on that, if I may, Mr.

Mayor, just to follow up on that, uh Mr.

Krieger, um there is a general trend towards this being the standard across all jurisdictions, not just the ones um Chief Aries mentioned, but like other cities, like this is what you're seeing as the standard class three.

That is correct.

It is it is certainly the pr predominant um way that others are regulating.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Kruger.

And with that, um definitely respect the comments of the um presenters, both both the ones who spoke and just emailed counsel.

Um and like Councilman McBroom, I had a little bit of skepticism about the part of this ordinance that reached into this particular issue.

I think given the issue of how many other jurisdictions are setting this exact rule.

If we have something different, I I just don't know how that works in in practice.

I think any time you're implementing a safety regulation, there's some level of difficulty of drawing a line because there's always something that's close to the line that's um you know that's a tough call.

Um but taking a step back, the overall purpose of the regulation is we have evidence around the metropolitan area that there are fatalities that are happening at an alarming rate from particularly children who are um riding these um these vehicles and getting into pretty gruesome accidents.

So the hope here is that we don't see that in Aprilville, um, that we we save some lives tonight.

Um that's why I'll be voting for the ordinance, but thank you so much for for your insight.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman White.

Um thank you, Mayor.

The uh question uh on um personal mobility devices.

Uh can that be further defined?

Are we talking uh more like a wheelchair or some kind of medical device?

Does that that does a bicycle fall under that definition?

Go ahead.

Mr.

DeSanto.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

The the personal mobility devices have been added to the ordinance, and they're really a catch-all for the non-biking um electric and gas-powered vehicles.

Well, we're really thinking primarily over like dirt bikes and almost like mopeds.

There's a lot of these um kind of new technology devices where they don't actually have any pedals, they just have kind of a post where you put your feet and then you use completely with a throttle like a dirt bike.

Uh, there is a uh specific exception in the ordinance for any type of disability accommodation device, and so those aren't subject uh to this ordinance, but it's trying to capture those devices that don't fit under the bicycle definition, but yet are still posing some of the same concerns that we're seeing with the other e-bikes.

Okay, thank you.

I and I don't know if it needs to be spelled out, or I may have missed it, but uh that would that would be something I would be concerned with.

And I I agree with Mr.

Page.

Um, quite frankly, uh just a regular bicycle can you know get up to 50 miles an hour on those trails.

So I don't know, maybe just a speed limit on the paths themselves may make more sense, and it kind of captures, I think, anyone going over that speed, which at the end of the day that's what we're looking at is someone who's just going too fast and it can injure someone uh because of that speed.

So thank you.

We have a motion and a second on I-24 roll call.

Gibson?

Aye.

Holds our aye, Jane.

Aye, Kelly.

I McBroom.

Aye.

Say it.

I Wilson.

I guess.

Motion passes nine zero.

Adam J1.

Item J1 is a recommendation to open and continue the public hearing to vacate a portion of White Oak Drive right away between Prairie Avenue and Hillside Road to the December 16th, 2025 City Council meeting.

Public hearing to vacate a portion of White Oak Drive is now open.

Anyone who wishes to speak may come forward.

You're going the wrong way.

Have a good night.

Councilman White might have a motion to close the public hearing.

I'll move to close.

We'll continue to continue.

Oh, so we need a motion to continue the public hearing.

Thank you.

Okay.

Mayor move to uh continue the public hearing uh on this particular item.

To the December 16th.

To the December 16th, 2025 council meeting.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Motion and a second to continue the public hearing on J 1 to the December 16th meeting.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes 9-0.

Public hearing is continued.

J2.

Item J2 and J3 as a recommendation to conduct the public hearing for the 2026 annual budget and then pass the ordinance adopting the 2026 annual budget in the amount of 685 million, 342,588 dollars.

We have two speakers.

The first speaker is Sam Entel, followed by Tim Farido.

Public hearing for the 2026 annual budget is now open.

First speaker, Mr.

Intel.

And then Mr.

Frito, if you're here, if you can move down to the front row.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council and Mayor.

I just want to briefly comment on the council's last discussion at the last meeting.

Um to the discussion about increasing the property tax levy to pay for additional uh crisis and mental health staff and uh and then comment on on the budget in general.

And so I think this sounded like an unnecessary problem passed on to the taxpayer.

Uh as it was stated in the last meeting, I think it was the mayor that said uh we already have over 93% of the police department trained on handling mental health crises.

And um we certainly shouldn't be passing on any cost of the property taxpayer unnecessarily.

Um the discussion seemed a little bit gratuitous in that regard, and then and it did not demonstrate a pressing need to pass on new costs to the last resort, which is the taxpayer.

It didn't it didn't rise to the urgency to merit that.

Additionally, a well-known source of mental health crises or domestic disputes is financial stress, and rather than getting to the heart of any medical mental health issues, this planned solution was to contribute to families financial stress.

And so people we people cannot continually be nickel and dimed, especially in uh in an age of an inflation, where the average uh U.S.

inflation in the last four years is higher than any group of four years going back to at least 2000.

Secondly, on budgets in general, just beyond this issue for future budgets, too.

Uh raising taxes on consumers as the revenue source for a policy is almost always going to be unnecessary given the size of budgets and programs anymore.

Parts of budgets can be shrunk, overall budgets can be shrunk, and it just requires the will to do it.

And we and we do have precedent for this.

So uh, for example, Akron, Ohio earlier this year, uh two percent overall reduction budget.

Eugene, Oregon, similar, Syracuse, New York, similar, and not every program remained in their new budgets.

And all of these cities are similar in size to Naperville, uh, population-wise, and they're doing this right now in an inflationary economy.

So I think there's no reason for why cities shouldn't look to each other to learn efficiencies uh or opportunities, what can be cut, what contracts should be rebid, what worked well, what didn't work well.

So I would invite Naperville to set as a goal to match or exceed other cities in streamlining a budget and reducing a budget to ease the constraint on taxpayers and make other public forums in other cities cite Naperville as the benchmark on how to operate a budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The second speaker is Tim Farrito.

Well, uh, to continue Tim Ferrito, Naperville resident, uh, to continue with this transparency transparency theme and also taxpayer theme.

I wanted to go through uh the taxes embedded in retail gasoline.

So what I'm showing here is the taxes embedded into the Naperville retail gasoline tax uh retail outlet.

So um the first tax that I like to talk about is the sales tax that the state implements.

It's a six to six point two five percent.

Currently it's around 19 cents a gallon.

The next tax is another state excise tax, which is currently 48 cents.

Okay.

That was 19 cents in uh 2019, it's more than doubled.

Um when you combine these two state taxes, about 67 cents a gallon.

It's one of the highest ones in this in the in the country.

Uh then we have the federal total access tax, uh, it's about 18 cents a gallon.

Uh every state pays that.

Uh there's a minor environmental fee.

DuPage County also gets your hand in the cookie jar and they charge nine cents a gallon, and then you have the city of Naperville, which is about which is four cents a gallon.

So if you add up all these taxes right now, the total tax in the gallon of gasoline is a dollar a gallon.

I don't think many people in the public understand how high the taxes are in the in gasoline.

It's not very transparent.

Uh so if you look at as an equivalent sales tax, so if you the rate that's needed, take the pre-tax amount to create a dollar, it's 44.5% right now.

Umstream of that, there's another uh cost that the consumer pays.

This is across the whole country.

It's called it's uh the renewable fuel standard.

Uh it's a federal program uh which mandates a certain amount of uh biofuels reuse in U.S.

motor fuels.

Uh this adds about four to eighteen cents a gallon to the price that you see at the pumps.

Um it's similar to the renewable portfolio standard that the states run, except for instead of having recs, you have rins.

Um fairly complicated system.

I could be up here for an hour if I wanted to talk about it.

Um the next thing I want to talk about.

So the next thing I want to talk about, there was a talk during the budget workshop that volumes are of gas line are down because of EV rollouts.

That's part of it.

Greater reason is this uh CAFE standard.

It's a federal mandated program, it's corporate average fuel economy.

It's called this is uh was introduced in the mid-70s to win the U.S.

off of middle Middle Eastern crude.

It forces the MPG miles, it forces automakers to make a higher MPG model car.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other speakers on the public hearing for the 2026 annual budget?

Seeing none, Councilman White may have a motion to close the public hearing.

Mayor move to close the public hearing.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Public hearings now closed.

Next item.

G three.

Item J3 is a recommendation to pass the ordinance adopting the 2026 annual budget in the amount of 685 million 342,588 dollars.

Councilman White may have a motion.

Mayor move to pass the ordinance adapting the 2026 annual budget in the amount of 685 million three hundred and forty-two thousand five hundred and eighty-eight dollars.

Second Kelly?

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and second on J3 discussion.

Councilman Syed.

Okay.

Seeing no discussion, roll call.

Holz Hour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I McBroom.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

L one.

Item L one is recommendation to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance amending section three-one-nine of the Naperville Municipal Code increasing the 2026 special events and community arts grant program funding gap to $2,510,000.

Councilman White, may have a motion.

Mayor move to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance amending section 3-1-9 of the Naperville Municipal Code increasing the 2026 special events and community arts grant program funding cap to $2,510,000.

Second Kelly?

Second Kelly.

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

None roll call.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I McBroom.

No.

Cyan.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

No.

Worley?

No.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzauer?

Aye.

Motion passes 63.

Councilman White, M1.

Mayor move approved the ward of bid 25-241, Maple Brook Phase 2 water main improvements to J.

Congden Sewer Service for an amount not to exceed $1,598,396 and 75 cents plus a 3% contingency.

Council McKelly.

Second Kelly.

The motion on second on M1 roll call.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holz Hour.

Aye.

Jane?

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White M to Mayor move to approve the award of RFQ 25-140 to poly polytheline.

P PVC conduit qualifications to power line supply, universal utility supply, United Utility Supply, Rural Electric Supply Cooperative and West Coast Distribution as approved vendors for a prop future projects for an amount not to exceed $1,750,000 in for a five-year term.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M2.

Councilman McBroom, do you have a question?

Okay.

Roll call.

McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holz Hour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White, M3.

I moved to approve the award of RFP 25-068 new SCADA Durms and OMS platform purchase deployment and integration to surveillant for an amount not to exceed $2,250,000 and $21 plus a 3% contingency on implementation costs and for a six-year term.

Council Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Motion of second on an M3 roll call.

Scien.

Aye.

White.

Sorry, I went too fast.

Here you go and throw me off on the screen here.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um I just I have a question.

I'm not sure who for on this one.

This item is 2.

Um two million dollars, and we originally had applied for a DO department of energy grant that was going to cover half of this, right?

And we got word in October that along with projects across 13 states that the federal government had canceled the grant we had told we were gonna get right.

So 50 percent 1.1 million.

We were supposed to get funded from the federal government that was canceled.

Um so moving forward, I guess my question for staff is does moving forward with this approval jeopardize.

We're in the process of um appealing, appealing the grant.

Is moving forward with this jeopardize our appeal process, Director Groth, Brian Groff Electric Utility Director.

Uh the DOE has acknowledged our informal appeal, which is the first step in the process.

They have not indicated that this award or anything like that would be um limiting to that appeal at all.

Okay.

Um do we have any sense of any projects like this in the past where maybe we've been awarded grants that then have been terminated later.

Um, if there's like a time limit, is there any chance that we think we might be able to recruit recruit?

Apologies, those funds um if they decide to change their decision to terminate the grant.

No, I think we're in the best case possible, right?

I mean, this is something that the electric utility needs to do.

Our system is old and realistically, it seems like there may be a predetermined outcome or whatnot.

So uh I think that moving forward with this is is the right time to get this done and get it aligned with the the GIS upgrades that the city is is rolling out over the next you know three or four years.

Okay, all right, thanks.

It's it's and if we had moved forward with it prior to the October termination, would we we still would have just been terminated and on the hook for the 2.2 million?

That's correct.

Okay, all right.

Thanks for answering those questions, appreciate it.

Councilman Hazar, question.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thanks, Councilwoman Gibson, for catching that.

That was uh eagle eyes there.

Um I am you know, I personally have some concerns about sort of the legality of the way that that money was um selectively taken from uh us and people in 13 other states, but not the other 37 states.

Um I would imagine there will be litigation in federal courts over that um process, and I'm curious.

Um, maybe this question for Mr.

DeSanto.

I'm curious what we do in a situation like that where the city's now on the hook for money, which was allocated through a lawful process and seems sort of arbitrarily was was taken.

Is there is there a way we um potentially ever sue the federal government?

Mr.

DeSano, you know it's not a situation that I'm familiar with as ever having been in in the past.

We're hearing a lot a lot this year.

Yeah, so we are uh monitoring this, and we would um suspect that if there is a significant legal action like there would be to take on the federal government from 13 states, uh it would probably be coming through the attorney general's office on behalf of the different municipalities in the state of Illinois.

So we'll continue to work and look out for that and see if it's an opportunity.

All right, and um as a follow-up to that, just I see we're talking about legislative priorities tonight.

Um I would ask the staffs and your staff, um RC, Doug, and that you um keep this in mind, and maybe this is something we discuss with our state reps just to see if our attorney general might have an interest in um getting some of that money for us.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilwoman Gibson, follow-up.

Uh thanks.

Uh actually just to echo what Councilman Holzir said, not just the state reps, but maybe we can reach out to the attorney general as well.

Um, if there's any action we can take on this.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second on M3 vocal call.

Cyan.

Aye.

White.

Aye Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes, Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

I Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

M4.

Mayor move to approve the award of option year one to contract 24-123, molded rubber, and cold shrink products to MVA Power Incorporated, Universal Utility Supply Company, Westco, Annixter, and West Coal Distribution Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $1,200,000.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Motion a second on M4 roll call.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Orling.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyan.

Aye.

Motion passes 9001.

Item 01 is recommendation to approve the 2026 legislative priorities.

Councilman White, may I have a motion?

Mayor move to approve the twenty twenty-six legislative priorities.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on O one.

Councilwoman Gibson question.

Uh yes, thank you.

Sorry to throw this at you, Chief.

But I have a question about uh the FOIA in particular, um, the monetized body camera footage.

If I could just get some more sorry, apologize.

Not whoever that question is appropriate for.

On what we mean by um not monetizing body cam footage.

Chief Aries, you want to clarify it?

Yeah, absolutely.

So what we're talking about is a lot of these.

Um let me give it a specific example.

You and I could start a Facebook, TikTok, Instagram page, and call ourselves a media company.

And then that gives us certain entitlements where when we FOIA things, they they can't be denied.

So they're monetizing it because based on the amount of clicks you get, depending on whatever social media site you're getting, you're making money off this.

So these aren't there they're a lot of folks are doing this under the guise of transparency, and I will say it any news company that wants to FOIA our police body cam footage, happily do that.

But what we're seeing and what we're getting over inundated with, which we've also brought, we've needed to raise our records positions by three because of how the increase in FOIA percentage that we've received.

We're getting really taxed on this now, and we're not seeing it from the traditional media.

We're seeing it from social media pages.

Okay, thanks.

That's helpful.

Um I'm I'm comfortable voting to approve this legislative agenda.

I would just say um my notes to staff would be the devil's in the detail for this, that um that sounds like a really difficult situation that we're in, but to make sure the wording around monetizing um doesn't restrict individuals' ability to get access to body camera footage, especially when they're the ones in it.

That I I would worry about monetizing might you know prohibit people from justly having access to the footage.

Um so I again I'm comfortable voting for this just kind of with that little caveat that as staff you know works on these legislative priorities.

We keep that in mind.

All right, thank you.

Definitely noted in in my conversations with our our reps as well as work with the DMMC and and the other cogs that are involved in this.

Um this is clearly about exploitation of people who have their worst day, and people who take this video and put it on the internet and they get paid for likes and clicks and exploit somebody who hasn't even been adjudicated through the system.

Yeah, and it's pretty sad to see it happen.

So all right, we have a motion and a second on oh one roll call.

Wilson?

Yes, Gibson, aye, whole sour.

Aye, Jane, aye, Kelly, McRum.

Aye, Cyan.

Aye, White, aye.

Motion passes nine zero, new business.

Seeing no new business, may have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second Kelly.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We are adjourned.