Good evening and welcome to the December 16th Naperville City Council meeting.

This is the last meeting of 2025.

Roll call.

Worley.

Here.

Gibson.

Holt Tower.

Here.

Jane.

Kelly.

Here.

McBroom.

Here.

Cyan.

Yeah.

White.

Here.

Wilson.

Here.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I believe.

One nation.

Under God.

Indivisible with liberty and justice.

First on the agenda tonight is awards and recognitions.

I'd like to ask NCTV17 executive director Liz Spencer to join me at the front podium.

Can I bring up the board too?

Sure.

Lord, come on up.

Stop taking pictures.

Come on.

Well, tonight we have the pleasure of honoring Liz Spencer's years at NCTV with a proclamation.

And the proclamation reads from the office of the mayor of the city of Naperville, celebrating the retirement of Elizabeth Braham Spencer.

Whereas Elizabeth Bram Spencer has faithfully served as executive director of Naperville Community Television, NCTV 17 for 21 years, dedicating her time and talents to delivering community-centered journalism that reflects Naperville's diverse voices and fosters shared understanding and civic engagement.

And whereas during her tenure, Elizabeth Braham Spencer has been instrumental in evolving NCTV 17 from a traditional local access television station into a trusted source of local information that empowers and connects the Naperville community, both on air and online.

And whereas Elizabeth Braham Spencer spearheaded a new era of professionally produced programming, including Naperville News 17, Naperville Sports Weekly, Meet the Candidates, live election coverage, talk shows, and live broadcasts of key community events such as parades, the Veterans Day ceremony, and Naperville Municipal Band concerts.

And whereas, under her leadership, 22 documentaries, many in partnership with the Naperville Heritage Society have been produced, showcasing and preserving local history.

Whereas working in partnership with the mayor, city staff, and the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, Elizabeth Braham Spencer and the NCTV 17 team have supported the annual State of the City Address.

And whereas over two decades at the helm of NCTV 17, Elizabeth Bram Spencer has mentored countless interns and young reporters, guiding the next generation of journalists.

And whereas Elizabeth Bram Spencer concludes 23 years of exceptional service to NCTV 17, the City of Naperville extends its heartfelt gratitude for her contributions, her leadership, her innovation, and lasting impact on the community and those around her.

Now, therefore, I, Scott Worley, mayor of the city of Naperville, do hereby proclaim December 17th.

So you get a full 24 hours tomorrow in recognition of the retirement of Elizabeth Braham Spencer in the city of Naperville.

Congratulations.

Okay.

Just make oh, hey, I'm on.

Good.

So thank you so much.

Um, as I reflect over these last 20 years, I think back at the first time I walked into NCTV 17 back on Fifth Avenue and met Mary Lou Whirley.

I never would have imagined that the rich experiences that would follow, or the journey, the journey that awaited me here in Naperville.

Sometimes life doesn't go as planned.

Instead, it becomes something far greater than you could have ever imagined.

And that is certainly true for me with NCTV 17 and the city of Naperville.

This station gave me an opportunity to build on a strong foundation, surrounded by people with big ideas, deep passion, and great energy.

Together, we helped NCTB grow from that local access station into a true community station, and one that reflects and serves the people of Naperville.

Along the way, I grew as a leader.

I became connected to the community and discovered my purpose as a storyteller and a community leader.

NCTV 17 and Naperville has given me so much, and I am truly grateful.

To my remarkable staff and board of directors, city staff, city council, thank you for your trusted partnership and support of me over the years.

I so appreciate it.

And to the residents of Naperville, thank you for trusting NCTV to share your stories.

It's through these stories that we stay connected to one another so that Naperville continues to be that big city with a big heart.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's all right.

I'll have later hold of your second.

All right, we're going to do it on three.

One, two, three.

One, two, three.

Now I can be on that.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My first board.

Oh, yes.

Congratulations.

Stick around.

But wait, there's more.

Ms.

Spencer, this is a gift from the city of Naperville.

Congratulations.

It'll mean a lot more when you open it.

Okay.

Oh my.

Wow.

Wow.

This will be part of a dedication on our later agenda for Ambassador Drive.

Well, thank you.

Thank you.

Beyond, again, beyond grateful.

Sometimes you just don't know what life is going to give you, and this has been a wonderful journey and trip.

So immensely grateful.

So and I'm sticking around, so I'll see you around town.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next journal on our agenda is public forum.

Mr.

Jotz, how many speakers do we have this evening?

There are 21 speakers signed up for public forum.

Okay, so according to our city code, when public forum is going to exceed 30 minutes, it will be bifurcated to after the final agenda item, which in this case will be O1.

So after the first 30 minutes of public speakers, the remainder will go after O-1.

Also, 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 other noises during or at the conclusion of any remarks made by any speaker are not allowed.

If this occurs, you will be asked to stop immediately.

If it continues to persist, I will recess the meeting until the audience abides by the rules in our city code.

No speaker should ever feel intimidated by the crowd.

Audience members, or excuse me, audience disruption is meant to intimidate those speaking, and we will not allow it in the chambers.

Audience members with signs.

The signs must not block any other audience members' view.

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

We have a timer located on the side dias to your right.

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

This helps 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 council chambers until the conclusion of public forum in the event council members want to ask follow-up questions.

Mrs.

Schatz, please call the speakers in groups of four.

And when your name is called, please come have a seat in the front row, so you will be ready to speak once your name is called.

That keeps us going as quickly as we can to get as much done in 30 minutes as we possibly can for the front half of the meeting.

In addition to the 21 speakers, five written comments have been posted to the city's website.

Our first four speakers are Rich Janner, Sue J.

Shah, Asim Babar, and James Budd.

You can just use this down.

Good evening.

My name is Rich Janner, uh, Naperville resident and business owner.

We are aware the data center proposed for 1960 Lucent Lane is not yet on your formal agenda.

That said, since council members are actively performing due diligence and research, we're initiating public comment here tonight with an abbreviated group of speakers and experts.

The movement to oppose data centers near neighborhoods has tremendous momentum nationally, and opposition now cuts across political lines.

Democrats tend to oppose based upon environmental impact and resource consumption, whereas Republicans tend to raise red flags about public safety and strain on the energy grid.

This past week, the good people of Chandler, Arizona erupted with the applause in their council chamber as their city council unanimously voted down a data center proposal seven to zero.

Here in Naperville, what started as a NIMBY movement has now spread to all corners of the city.

Over 4,000 citizens have signed an opposition petition.

Despite the controversy, I hope everyone here today can agree on two points.

First, the most important responsibility of a parent is to keep their children safe.

Second, the most important responsibility of a government agency is to ensure the safety and well-being of citizens.

If I see a doctor and question the diagnosis, I may seek a second opinion.

We have 25 opinions in writing on the record from Neighborhood doctors sounding the alarm about the public safety and health risk associated with the petitioner's proposal.

Are 25 opinions convincing?

If not, to be candid, we can get 25 more.

It contradicts our brand.

If you wish to set the big picture aside and evaluate this purely on land use, the burden of proof rests with the petitioner to prove four conditions.

All four conditions are met.

After our testimony tonight, we hope you'll conclude the four-way test has not been met.

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Sue Jay Shah.

Good evening, members of the council.

Uh my name is Dr.

Sue J.

Shaw.

I'm a Naperville resident and a board certified oncologist.

I've seen more cancer than anyone should, and have also seen that it can be associated with exposures that we have the choice to permit.

I'm here because the proposed CARIS Data Center, specifically its fleet of 24 massive diesel generators, creates a foreseeable health risk that should not be placed next to homes, parks, and where children live and play.

Data centers are important, but that doesn't mean they belong anywhere.

This is not a small and boutique facility.

It's a heavy industrial operation.

This is an intentional sighting choice for this council that has consequences.

The science on diesel emissions is definitive.

Diesel exhaust contains over 40 known carcinogens, including nitrogen oxides, PM 2.5, and ultrafine particles that directly enter the bloodstream once inhaled.

Exposure is linked to asthma, heart disease, and yes, cancer.

The EPA states there's no safe level of diesel exhaust exposure, and the World Health Organization classifies diesel exhaust as a group one carcinogen, the same as tobacco smoke and asbestos.

We would never permit those exposures near home than children, and diesel exhaust should be treated no differently.

We have heard that Tier 4 generators make this proposal acceptable.

They do not.

Tier 4 is a regulatory floor, not a health safeguard.

Importantly, Tier 4 emissions controls actually take several minutes to engage during startup, cold starts, and during testing, when emissions are actually the highest, and they do not capture the very small ultrafine particles that are linked to inflammation and DNA damage.

We've also heard that the impact should be limited because generators run only during testing and power outages.

In reality, they're tested in sequence, producing multiple days of recurring localized emissions each month.

It is these repeated exposures that are linked to chronic disease.

Children will bear the greatest burden.

Their lungs are still developing, they breathe faster, and they spend more time outdoors, in this case, in multiple playgrounds near the proposed site.

Early diesel exposure leads to permanent lung damage.

And these risks are not theoretical.

Diesel generator permitting in Virginia has been estimated to has been linked to an estimated 14,000 asthma symptom cases.

And Naperville may face an even greater risk, as our metropolitan region already receives an F grade for particular pollution from the American Lung Association.

This is not speculation.

It's biology.

It's also a public health decision because once exposure begins, families cannot opt out.

And once health is lost, it cannot be restored.

And for those reasons, this proposal fails to meet conditional use, standard 2.1 on the account of endangering public health, and therefore should be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next figure.

The next four speakers are Ashim Babar, James Budd, Sarah Baugh, and Dan Johnson.

Good evening.

My name is Dr.

Austin Baber.

I'm a board certified cardiologist and member of teaching faculty at a large local VA hospital and also a resident of Naperville.

To continue from where Dr.

Shaw left off, I'd like to counter a common misconception regarding the proximity and exposure of the proposed Tier 4 generators in comparison to the highway traffic passing through the IEDA corridor.

First, the freeway is significantly farther from the proposed building site, at least twice the distance from homes, which allows for an exponentially greater dispersion of pollutants across a moving roadway before reaching residents.

In contrast, the diesel generators would be stationary, likely with low low height exhaust stacks, concentrating pollutants near ground level adjacent to homes, local schools, and playgrounds.

These locomotive-sized generators operate in clusters, which even at short testing cycles produce intense bursts of pollution, releasing fine and ultrafine particles that tier four systems cannot fully filter.

In contrast, highway emissions are a mix of gasoline and diesel exhaust, resulting in a lower concentration of diesel particulates overall.

Such fine particulate matter can both lead to development of and exacerbate pre-existing cardiovascular disease.

According to the EPA, exposure to increased concentrations of PM 2.5 particles over a few hours to weeks can trigger cardiovascular disease-related heart attacks and death.

Longer term exposure can lead to an overall decrease in life expectancy.

Noise pollution is associated with annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, and impaired cognitive performance.

There's also an increased incidence of high blood pressure, heart attacks, heart failure, and stroke, according to the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In addition to the cognitive alterations of constant industrial low frequency noise specifically, multiple studies show increases in annoyance, agitation, distraction, sleep disorders, hearing loss, and cardiovascular disease.

Noise levels above 50 to 60 decibels can lead to decreased heart rate variability in addition to increased blood pressure, both of which are increased long-term cardiovascular risk.

Prolonged exposure to even lower intensity decibels, particularly at night from studies of wind turbines, also showed an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

When presented with all of the above data on health risks at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the representative for the petitioners simply dismissed them, dismissed them with the throwaway line risk does not equal hazard.

Sure, risk is not guaranteed, but hazards are known.

Take the common example of a shark in the ocean.

The shark is the hazard with potential to cause harm.

Risk is equal to hazard times exposure or the probability that a hazard will cause harm.

In this example, swimming with a shark is a risk and in most cases unnecessary.

Now consider the proposed data center.

What is noise pollution and air polluting diesel generators?

Those are the sharks.

Building them near neighborhoods is an unnecessary and frankly irresponsible risk.

Does that mean we want to kill all sharks?

No, they can be quite majestic, and many even happen to enjoy them from afar, such as during the famed shark week.

Just don't throw your constituents in the water with them.

Please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is James Budd.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

I'm James Butt.

I've spent the last 30 years building and working in data centers.

In reviewing the KARIS, excuse me, reviewing the housing trends data center pricing impact analysis submitted by KARIS.

As their basis for meeting the conditional use standards 2.2, I have some concerns.

The report drew the conclusion that living near a data center does not negatively impact home values.

However, both Illinois and federal appraisal practice standards require that any property being compared must be truly similar in the factors that influence value.

It overlooks the most important difference between these facilities scale.

The KARIS proposal is a 36 megawatt facility with 24 diesel backup generators.

All five of the sites mentioned in the analysis combined do not equal the size of the KARAS proposed data center and have significantly less impact to homes due to their small scale.

This would be like using five 500 square foot homes as comparative sales data for a 3,000 square foot home.

It is a basic requirement of any sales comparison that comps be similar to the subject property.

Speaking of risks, per FOIA data received from Naperville, the only facility with more than 2,000 gallons of above ground fuel storage is Gerald Nissan with a 3,000 gallon tank.

This is far less than the 70 plus thousand gallons of diesel fuel KARIS will have.

CARES submitted noise estimates that are right up at the allowable limits.

No buffer for anything being wrong.

I understand some or all of you have recently visited a data center, comparing the noise of a of the cooling of a data center on a cold December day to a hot July day is not a good comparison.

Fans run slower when it is cold outside and make far less noise.

The petitioner's assertion that generator exhaust will be less than the school bus and Amazon truck traffic.

This is not true.

And even with the lowest testing numbers, KARIS has spoken about.

Using air permit data, KARIS competitors like Cirrus 1 permit for equivalent of 100 hours of non-emergency generator use.

Yet KARIS is saying that they will be half that.

That generator use is equivalent to an extra 60 full days of traffic on I-88, only hundreds of feet from people's homes without ever being run for emergency purposes.

The state and federal government define diesel exhaust and noise as harmful pollutants.

Air permits are required to allow generator exhaust and permanentism is required to allow fuel storage.

From a legal perspective, these are all harmful things that pose risk and are regulated as such and do not meet the conditional use standards as they are detrimental to the endangered the public health and safety.

Data centers of this scale do not belong near homes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next four speakers are Sarah Baugh, Dan Johnson, Clara Lambert, and Nadim Mirza.

Hi, I'm Sarah Baugh.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition to the KARIS proposed data center.

A conditional use is never an entitlement.

The burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use satisfies all criteria.

None of the criteria have been met.

Critically, there must be proof that this KARIS proposed data center will not decrease the value of nearby homes.

How are we to rely on the conclusion of a pricing impact analysis, which claims as such, when the five comparable data centers combined do not match the proposed facilities megawatt load or the number of generators?

Why, as a real estate professional, am I being asked to pull FOIA requests to see if DC proposals are behind properties that my clients want to purchase?

Why am I being asked by residents who are living in close proximity to DCs of comparable size and impact if they should sell their homes?

Then later to have them admit that they don't feel honest about that because they would feel sorry for the person who would buy it.

Equally important, there must be proof that this data center will not restrict our future development.

Yet the I-88 corridor study commissioned by the NDP conducted by AICOM calls for transforming this area from low density single-use campuses into a vibrant mixed use innovation district with high walkability and coordinated synergistic planning.

How then can a single use industrial facility possibly align with that vision?

Let's ask ourselves might the CARES proposal on this particular parcel foreclose future higher value development opportunities.

Is the long-term vision for this area to become a data center corridor?

Despite what you may have heard, residents are not against change.

We are excited for it.

The corridor study emphasizes RD, life sciences, employment dense commercial uses that generate daytime activity, support retail and hospitality, repair fragmented land patterns, increase walkability to build a cohesive high value district identity.

A data center directly conflicts with every single one of these objectives.

It is a single use, land intensive, low permanent employment facility.

It generates no daytime population, no foot traffic, no synergistic demand for dining or services.

It consumes large amounts of power, provides minimal long-term enjoyment, and does not advance the economic multipliers that are essential to this district's future.

The council has the responsibility to make sure to uphold rigorously the conditional use standards and to ensure that this particular parcel is developed in a way that both protects current residents, adjacent properties, and our district's future.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Dan Johnson.

Good evening.

My name is Dan Johnson.

I live in Naperville with my wife and daughter, and I'm also a civil engineer who practices in the area.

I'm here to speak in opposition to an item that may appear on the agenda soon the conditional use request for 1960 Lucent Lane, also known as the CARES Critical Data Center.

This has been in the news the last few months, but the cake has been baking since 2019 when the city initiated an update to its comprehensive master plan.

The plan states that it consolidates various plans into a single streamlined document to provide clear guidance to citizens, developers, and the community.

In short, the document provides a look into the future so everyone can plan accordingly.

In 2020, planning efforts were placed on hold during the pandemic.

Interestingly, the plan states, while planning was delayed, development did not stop.

Several areas that were considered key sites received approval, including Naper Commons.

So the comprehensive master plan was formally adopted by this body in 2022 and shows the entire legacy Nokia property as future residential.

And it was in front of this backdrop that a portion of the Nokia property was rezoned, and Poulte developed over 200 homes in the Naper Commons subdivision, and families invested their life savings into property in Naperville.

Then in 2023, another portion of the Nokia property was purchased.

Shortly after, data centers were introduced as a conditional use within ORI zoning as part of a broader discussion about the new property owners' request for a warehouse and trucking facility and the evolution of ORI zoning as a whole.

Soon, a petitioner may bring a conditional use request for a data center in front of this body.

They could have chosen one of the ORI permitted uses or a PUD that is in harmony with the surrounding area and the master plan, but they did not.

Due to that choice, they must demonstrate that the development meets all four conditions set forth in the municipal code.

Other speakers have outlined how the development does not and cannot meet the first three conditions.

The fourth condition is simple.

It states that the establishment of the conditional use is not in conflict with the adopted comprehensive master plan.

On the screen is a map of that plan, which shows 1960 Lucent Lane as medium density residential.

Objectively, this development does not meet that criteria.

Whether or not this project was vetted through NDP or endorsed by another outside party is immaterial to the decision that will be in front of you.

That is by design.

The master plan has a full weight of this body behind it.

And this body has the will of the people behind it.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Clara Lambert, Nadim Mersha, and Hebo Suleiman.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Clara Lambert, and I am a Naperville resident.

And I wanted to speak about accountability, specifically how communities across Illinois, the United States, and the world have learned that industrial data centers do not belong next to neighborhoods, parks, forest preserves, churches, or schools.

Let's start right next door.

Aurora, Illinois recently imposed a moratorium on new data centers after experiencing complications with those it had already approved.

Their city leaders admitted they needed to pause, reassess, and protect residents before allowing more industrial development near community spaces.

That is what responsible leadership looks like.

Across Illinois, other municipalities have tightened zoning and pushed back against data centers near homes as the long-term impacts, noise, 24-7 operations, and industrial encroachment have become clearer.

This pattern extends nationwide in Northern Virginia, the world's largest data center hub.

Elected officials have been voted out or recalled for approving data centers too close to neighborhoods.

Residents there are living with constant noise and operational disruptions because earlier leaders failed to set appropriate boundaries.

In Oregon and Arizona, cities have halted or rejected proposals for data centers in residential areas after concluding that the initial promises did not outweigh the disruption to the community.

Even Silicon Valley cities, places built on tech, are now reevaluating how close data centers can be to neighborhoods, parks, and schools.

And globally, the trend is the same.

Communities in the Netherlands have restricted data center development near residential areas.

Dublin, Ireland, has enacted a moratorium in parts of the city after cumulative impacts have become too great.

Across all of these regions, the lesson is clear.

When industrial data centers are placed near homes, communities suffer, and elected officials face the consequences of those decisions.

Naperville does not have to follow this path.

We are not anti-data center or anti-development.

We support data centers in industrial areas and development on this site that blends with a neighborhood environment.

But placing a 36 megawatt industrial data center near neighborhoods is a mistake that cannot be undone, and many other communities are now scrambling to correct decisions their leaders made too quickly.

You have an opportunity to lead differently, to learn from others, and to put your residents first.

We're not asking you to be anti-technology or anti-business.

We are asking you to be pro-Naperville and to choose land uses that protect the character, safety, and well-being of the people who live here.

Please vote no on the CARIS proposal as presented.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Nadim Mirza.

Hi there.

My name is Nadim, and this is my son Safe.

We're both residents of Naperville, and we're here to talk to you today about risk versus benefit.

Because as an anesthesiologist, that's how I make every decision around my practice in the operating room.

So the petitioner claims that Tier 4 diesel generators will mitigate risk to the adjacent communities.

But the reality is that tier four generators were phased in by the EPA in 2008.

And despite improvements from older generators, they do not completely eliminate harmful emissions.

Those pollutants are directly correlated with increased rates of lung cancer, asthma, and impaired lung development, as the oncologist has already detailed for you.

These concerns are particularly relevant to me as my son here, who's three and a half years old, was born with prematurely one line and is particularly susceptible to the effects of adverse effects of air pollution.

So he's just one of hundreds of young children in the surrounding communities in homes that are only a few hundred feet away from this proposed data center.

So the risk of diesel emissions to local communities is a non-zero number.

We know that it exists, that these emissions are harmful, and that the closer we are to residential areas, the more significant these harmful effects are.

So Common is reporting 10 to 15% increases in year-on-year utility bills.

Amerin reported 22% increases in year-on-year electricity bills.

The projected combined property and utility tax revenue of this proposal is at most 2.2 million dollars.

If every household in Naperville, all 56,000 were to experience just a $3.27 increase in their monthly utility bill, that would completely offset every single dollar generated by this proposal.

Not taking to account any of the negative health effects that we're left to deal with.

The petitioner also promises hundreds of jobs, but in their own presentations, they said after the 16 to 24 month construction period, it would actually only be 50 to 60 permanent jobs.

Less than a single fast food restaurant.

We want to long, we want to build a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with whatever development comes on this property, not a parasitic one in which there's immense benefit to the petitioner and relatively little with significant harm to Naperville.

We urge you to vote no on this matter as the risks outweigh the benefits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next two speakers are Hiva Suleiman and Edwin Cruz.

Next speaker.

Edwin Cruz.

My name is Edwin Cruz, and I'm the attorney who submitted the legal brief analyzing the conditional use test under the code.

As you've heard tonight, approval by this council of a conditional use requires that the petitioner, the proposed use satisfies four specific requirements.

Failure to meet even one of those requirements is sufficient to require denial.

We contend that the petitioner fails to meet all four of those requirements and therefore their petition should be denied.

Now the fourth of those requirements is a purely objective and binary standard.

You either meet it or you don't.

And that requirement says that the proposed use must not conflict with the master plan.

Here, the subject property is designated under the master plan as medium density residential.

That's in plain and direct conflict with the proposed use as a data center.

For this reason and for this reason alone, petitioners' request should fail.

Now, petitioner will likely argue that the master plan is merely advisory as a plow as opposed to legally binding, like a zoning ordinance.

But that argument would be unpersuasive because we've seen PCC decisions that have relied on the master plan as justification.

For example, in the decisions relating to the properties located at 1932 McDowell Road and the Franklin Flats property, the PCC has relied on the master plan as justification to approve or deny zoning requests.

In fact, in the Franklin Flats decision, Commissioner Van Somerin specifically noted that the master plan is intentional in its uses and recommendations.

So advisory or not, the master plan has been a determinative factor in these decisions.

Again, failure to meet even one of these conditions is sufficient to require denial.

When you add in failure to meet the other three requirements, then the argument for denial becomes even more compelling.

But it's not just prior council and PZC decisions as I've outlined in my brief.

There's also applicable case law here.

In a case called Our Savior's Evangelical Lutheran Church versus the City of Naperville, which involved the Naperville City Council.

The Illinois appellate court established that when evaluating a conditional use, this council must ensure that its decision has a real and substantial connection to public health safety and general welfare.

If not, then that decision could be deemed to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable and potentially invalidated.

In fact, that's exactly what happened in that case.

The case was remanded for reconsideration of those factors.

In conclusion, the record is clear and convincing.

Not only does it show failure to meet the four standards, it also shows prior council and PCC decisions that support denial in analogous fact patterns.

But most importantly, it includes the law, both case law and statute.

This supports denial as the legally correct outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think we have time for one more.

One more speaker.

The next speaker is Jim Fillar.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Michael Thibodeau.

Well, Mr.

Thibodeau is making its way around.

Um, just a reminder, anybody who is not called, you will be called at the conclusion of agenda item 01 when we will reconvene public forum.

Good evening.

My name is Michael Thibodeau, and I'm here representing the West Suburban Illinois chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Firstly, thank you for your time this evening.

I recognize the enormous responsibilities that this distinguished body is responsible for.

So I appreciate you hearing from the public.

I am here to speak against the proposed CARES Critical Data Center at 1960 Lucent Lane.

I understand that this item is not agendized yet for a city council meeting, but I also understand that deliberation on items this important happened well in advance of the formal vote being put on the agenda.

So I wanted to make sure that I voiced my opposition in this last meeting of the year.

I want to stress that approval of this site would be a short-sighted decision and one that would send a clear message as to the priorities of this council to its constituents.

This site will negatively impact this community.

Just today, Cranes and the Chicago Tribune posted articles regarding the looming energy crisis in Illinois.

Within five years, we will be in an energy deficit, and the primary contributing factor to this will be AI usage in data centers.

This will raise energy costs in Naperville in Illinois.

We are seeing proposals for large data centers all over the Chicagoland area, spurred by this push to develop and use artificial intelligence.

There were growing signs that this is a bubble similar to the dot com bubble of the early 2000s.

And there is a possibility that many of these data centers will sit empty once this bubble pops.

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

Second Kelly.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 90.

We have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman White.

I moved to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

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

Mrs.

Schatz, please read the consent agenda.

There was one written comment that was posted to the website on I5.

Approval of the cash disbursements for the period of November 1st, 2025 through November 20, November 30th, 2025 for a total of 58,069.30 cents.

Approval of the regular city council meeting minutes of December 2nd, 2025.

Approval of the City Council meeting schedule for January, February, and March 2026.

Receiving the year-to-date budget report through November 30th, 2025.

Receiving the update on the renewable energy program and proposed program changes for 2026.

Approval of the award of option year one to the contract for sanitary sewer CC TV inspection to National Power Rotting Corp for an amount not to exceed 200,000, 813.69 cents for a one-year term.

Approval of the award of option year number one to the contract for supervisory control and data acquisition maintenance services to advance automation and controls for an amount not to exceed 194,180 for a one-year term.

Approval of the award of option year number one to the contract for cast iron mantle covers and grades to EJ USA for an amount not to exceed 190 197,211.49 cents.

Approval of the award of option year number one to the contract for excavation and underground utility repairs to Miller Pipeline LLC, Beish Excavating, and IHC construction companies for an amount not to exceed 488,410 and 15 cents for a one-year term.

Approval of the award of option year number one to the contract for water distribution parts to water product company for an amount not to exceed 428,386 and 29 cents for a one-year term.

Approval of the award of option number number two to the contract for residential water meter replacement program to Calumet City Plumbing and Heating Company for an amount not to exceed 250,430 for a one-year term.

Approval of the award of option year number three to the contract for landscape design and planting to Christie Weber and Company for an amount not to exceed 470,000 dollars in a two-year term.

Approval of the award of option year number four to the contract for lift station force main inspection to RJN Group for an amount not to exceed 179,000 dollars for one year term.

Approval of the award of cooperative procurement for electric utility supplies to Wesco for an amount not to exceed 750,000 dollars for one year term.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for new police vehicle purchases units 195, 196, and 198 to Curry Motors Fleet for an amount not to exceed 148,000 one dollar.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for in-ground structures to Wesco Incorporated for an amount not to exceed 789,529 dollars.

Approval of the award of cooperative procurement for ArcFlash rated and flame retardant apparel to Tyndale Enterprises for an amount not to exceed $104,500 for a two-year term.

Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for electrical disconnect switch replacements to Gray Bar for an additional eight months.

Approval of the order of change order number two to the contract for Van Buren Parking Facility 2024 LED lighting retrofit to Rags Electric for an additional eight months.

Approval of the order of change round number two to the contract for fire station renovation stations one and three to light construction for an amount not to exceed $40,082.

Approval of the proposed calendar year 2026 social service grant and opioid remediation grant funding allocations.

Accepting the public water main improvements at Delta Sonic Car Wash System and McDowell Point Apartments, the street and street light improvements at Ashwood Heights 2 subdivision and authorizing the city clerk to reduce the corresponding public improvement surety.

Passing the ordinance approving variances to permit a wall sign for Charles Schwab at 19 West Chicago Avenue.

Passing the ordinances for the levy and assessment of taxes for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 21st, 2026 for the following.

Adopting a total levy of $98,939 for special service area number 23, Napor Maine.

Adopting a total levy of $68,000 for special service area number $25, Illinois Route 59 and Lacrosse Lane.

Adopting a total levy of $93,111 for special service area number 30, downtown streetscape.

Adopting a total levy of $23,680 for special service area number 31, downtown streetscape block 423.

Adopting a total levy of $20,026 for special service area number $34, downtown streetscape.

Adopting a total levy of $125,000 for special service area number $35, Downtown Streetscape.

Adopting a total levy of $1,259,718 for special service area number $36, downtown maintenance and marketing.

Passing the ordinance approving a minor change to the conditional use for Good Shepherd Lutheran Church at $1310 Shepherd Drive and passing the ordinance approving a minor change to the conditional use approved by ordinance 96-106 for the home to office conversion at 229 West Ogden Avenue.

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

Orley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzhour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyan.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Item J1 is conducting a truth and taxation hearing for the 2025 property tax levy.

Public hearing to conduct a truth and taxation hearing for the 2026 property tax levy is now open.

Anyone who wishes to speak may come forward at this time.

Seeing no one, Councilman White may have a motion to close the public hearing.

Mayor, move the close the public hearing.

Second Kelly.

A motion and second to close the public hearing.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 90.

Public hearing is now closed.

Next item.

Item J two is a recommendation to pass the ordinance for the levy and assessment of taxes for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2026, adopting a total property tax levy of $69,064,110.

Councilman White may have a motion.

Mayor move the pass ordinance for the levy and assessment of taxes for the fiscal year beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2026, adopting a total property tax levy of 69,64,110.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Oh I have new roll call on that one.

Actually call a roll.

We have motion of second call roll.

Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

I.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I mick Broom.

No.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Orterly.

Yes.

Motion passes 81.

Jree.

Item J three is a recommendation to pass the ordinance to abate a portion of the 2025 property tax levy for the city of Naperville, authorizing abatement of $8,500,181 from a total property tax levy of $69,064,110 for a net total $2025 property tax levy of $60,535 and $929.

Councilman White, we have a motion.

I move to pass the ordinance to abate a portion of the 2025 property tax levy for the city of Naperville, authorizing an abatement of $8,500 from the total property tax levy of $69,064,110 for a net total of $2,025 property tax levy of $60,535,929 dollars.

Council McKelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on J 3 roll call.

Holzhour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom?

No.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Motion passes 81.

J4.

Items J4 through J9 are receiving the staff report and reconvening the public hearing to vacate a portion of White Oak Drive right away between Prairie Avenue and Hillside Road.

Passing the ordinance vacating a portion of White Oak right of way between Prairie Avenue and Hillside Road.

And then passing the ordinance approving a preliminary plat of subdivision and owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for 870 Prairie 869 East Hillside 901 East Hillside and 930 Prairie Avenue.

White Oak Public Hearing was opened on December 2nd and continued to December 16th.

Seeing no one, Councilman White, may have a motion to close the public hearing on White Oak.

Mayor move to close the public hearing.

Second Kelly.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries 90.

The public hearing is now closed.

J5 is a recommendation to pass the ordinance, vacating a portion of the White Oak Drive right away between Prairie Avenue and Hillside Road.

Councilman White.

Mayor move to pass the ordinance vacating a portion of the White Oak Drive right of way between Prairie Avenue and Hillside Road.

Second Kelly.

We have motion and second on J5.

Roll call.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Orley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holds hour.

Aye.

Motion passes 90 J6.

J6 is a recommendation to pass the ordinance approving the preliminary final plat of subdivision and owners acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for 870 Prairie Avenue.

Councilman White.

Mayor move the pass the ordinance approving the preliminary final plat of subdivision and owners acknowledgement in acceptance agreement for 870 Prairie Avenue.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on J 6.

Roll call.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzhour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White.

J seven.

Mayor move to pass the ordinance approving the preliminary final plat of subdivision and owners acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for 869 East Hillside Avenue.

McKelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on J7.

Roll call.

McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holds our aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White.

J eight.

I move to pass the ordinance approving the preliminary final plat of subdivision and owners acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for 901 East Hillside Avenue.

Rossa States.

Second Kelly.

Motion and a second on J eight.

Roll call.

Cyan.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holds hour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Councilman White.

J9.

Mayor move to pass the ordinance approving the preliminary final plat of subdivision and owners' acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for 930 Prairie Avenue, the Koratsky Subdivision.

Second.

We have a motion and second on J9.

Roll call.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzhour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyan.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White.

M1.

Mayor move to approve the award of option year number two to contract 23-154.

Street lighting, controller, public building and municipal lot lighting maintenance to meet electric incorporated for an amount not to exceed $1,300,000.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion on second and M1 roll call.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holtzauer.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Councilman White.

M to I move to approve the award of option year number two to contract 23-152.

Council McKelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M2.

Roll call.

Warley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holtower.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I broom.

Aye.

Cyan.

I.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White, M3.

I move to approve the award of bid 25-242.

King's Terrace Water Main Improvements to Trine Construction Corporation for an amount not to exceed $5,908,400 plus a 3% contingency.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

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

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzhour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

Way.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Motion passes.

90.

Item 01.

Item 01 is a recommendation to approve the recommendation to discontinue meeting room rentals at the municipal center to all outside non-governmental groups effective July 1st, 2026, and authorized meeting room use at no charge between January 1st and June 30th, 2026 for those outside non-governmental groups that utilize the municipal center meeting rooms during calendar year 2025.

We have one statement of opposition and three written comments that were posted to the website and five speakers.

Call the first speaker.

The first speakers are John Brubaker, followed by Arlene Orr and Amy Friedman.

And as your names were called, please make your way to the front of the room so we can make sure you're near the podium.

This is a condensed version of the comments I emailed to you early this morning.

Excluding school properties, there are six identified public meeting spaces in Naperville that can accommodate 50 or more people.

All but one closes too early, in my opinion, at 8:30.

Eliminating the municipal center access to community groups would bring that number down to four spaces.

Aurora, with a similar population, has at least nine similar public meeting spaces that I can identify.

Should the staff's proposal be approved, Aurora would have more than twice the capacity of Naperville by this standard.

Further, the cost to community groups to rent in Aurora is less, and all the rooms are open longer in the evening.

Well before 2015, when city started charging for the municipal center use.

One reason the move to online meetings, but that is clearly not quote unquote normalized to use city staff's term.

If it were normal, we would be not meeting tonight here in person.

It certainly does have something to do with the erosion of the rental conditions.

I talked with one group, probably representative of others, indicating that the ever earlier closing times finally forced them to find something else after two decades of holding their meetings here.

It's just hard for people to get anywhere from work for 5 30 or 6 p.m.

meeting.

So after decades of using quote, cumbersome unclear and manual billing processes.

Apparently, it is no longer possible for city staff to function in this manner, even though in going from 900 meetings a year to 200 meetings a year.

The workload workload for that task must have a decrease some 78%.

The building and its amenities belong to the residents of Naperville.

The speaker's time is up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Arlene Orr, followed by Amy Friedman and Jane Burke.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you tonight.

My name is Arlene Orr, and I'm a member of the Naperville Senior Task Force, and this is Amy Friedman, also a member of the Naperville Senior Task Force.

Since its in stop establishment by the City Council in 2014, the Naperville Senior Task Force has supported our community's senior population through a wide variety of programming initiatives and assistance.

We work to bridge service gaps and barriers that exist to this important population within Naperville.

We work dutifully on behalf of the council and the city of Naperville to improve senior living through programs that we have developed, such as the Memory Cafe, which is a place where people with dementia can go with their loved one for community fellowship and support.

The Dementia Caregivers Support Group, which meets twice per week, and is another fellowship organization where caregivers within Naperville can go for support.

Silver CPR, which is seniors offered free CPR in conjunction with the Naperville Fire Department, dementia friendly education to community organizations, and this is in direct alignment with Naperville's dementia friendly designation as a city in 2020.

And of course, the senior of the year, which we recently had this past fall.

These programs have had measurable success.

For instance, over 400 seniors have been trained in silver CPR in the past two years alone, and that continues to grow with classes full all the time.

During our debriefs, attendees repeatedly emphasize the value of our work and appreciate the investment the city is making into senior well-being through the support of the senior task force.

However, to provide and continue to provide this world-class service that we have towards seniors in Naperville, a continuation of the city's partnership is required.

Right.

And the senior task force has you, Ms.

Friedman.

I yes, I'm Ms.

Friedman.

Okay, your time is beginning now.

Right.

And we'll probably keep it under three minutes because I'm running on Santa Claus Energy right now.

The task force has taken numerous steps to ensure that we have been good stewards of the taxpayers' dollars.

Among other measures, we have set up a 501c3 charitable organization to support our programming.

We are in the process right now of receiving grant funding.

However, the task force still requires non-financial support to fulfill the mission entrusted to us by this very council.

Continued cost-free access to the city space helps us to ensure that we can dedicate the maximum amount of our resources to our programming.

Access to the city space for the task force protects seniors by providing a clear sign of legitimacy.

In summary, we truly appreciate the support the council has given us, and we look forward to continuing to execute the council's direct mission of improving the lives of the citizens of Naperville.

If you have any questions, we'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Jane Burke, followed by Tim Messer.

Good evening.

I'm Jane Burke, and I am the Secretary of Naperville Preservation Inc.

I'm speaking on behalf of the organization.

We have really appreciated using the meeting rooms here at the municipal center, and especially every other month for our membership events, which are always at least 30 people and sometimes as many as 90.

I want to especially thank Julie Dummer, who is the staff person who manages the meeting room.

She's just incredibly helpful always, and it's really wonderful to work with her.

We understand the city's concerns for both safety and fiscal responsibility.

However, we want to urge you not to take away this benefit of meeting rooms here at the municipal center for the citizens of Naperville.

The meetings that we hold here, I think not only for our organization, but for many others, really support community engagement, and we really feel that this is a very valuable benefit to the citizens.

I've read the staff report very carefully, and I've also had the responsibility for booking meeting spaces for our organizations for several years.

I'd like to note some of the benefits of the municipal center that I think you really need to keep track of.

One is its central location.

You can talk about other meeting spaces that are available, but some of them are quite far south, which for certain organizations is a problem, or others are only available at particular time frames because their organization does business in the same meeting rooms, and so there's a conflict to book them.

Also, the municipal center has wonderful parking, which is very, very much appreciated.

Not all of the other options mentioned in the staff report can actually accommodate large groups.

And the library, which is given as an example in the staff report, is not always a good example.

I have personally tried very hard to book meetings there.

I would not call their system a modern system, although I know the staff has.

Thanks again for your time and for your service to this community.

Thank you.

Councilman McBroom Thank you, Mayor.

Uh appreciate the staff report.

I understand all the challenges um in your memo, uh, but the speakers have been compelling here.

Um I do instinctively um you know, have a little bit of a just kind of a gut feeling of you know, this this is this is Naperville's residence building.

Now I I don't necessarily think that other taxpayers should be subsidizing um, you know, groups use.

So I I guess my first question is it sounds like the reservation system is the biggest one of the biggest hurdles, and um I don't see a cost in the memo of you know what that would entail.

I'm I'm maybe I'm just thinking simply, you know, how hard could it be to have a billing system or uh um and you know, if if whatever number that is, and if we were to take fees up to a you know, uh a level that could cover a security or could could cover staff and could cover uh implementation of a reservation system, um, why why wouldn't we explore that?

Ms.

Schatz.

Sure.

Uh the the biggest concern um and the biggest challenge actually that we we are facing right now, we believe is a security issue, um, where we have meetings that are occurring on evenings where we do not have city staff responsible for um folks who are in the building.

So we'll have homeowner associations or other groups that are meeting in the meeting rooms, and while we have um the hired um officer at the or the hired guard at the front, um it's not a city employee who's tracking the folks coming in, making sure that every person who has come in has left the building in case of an emergency in the building, um, really knowing and being responsible for folks in the building.

So security is our our primary concern.

The secondary concern is really um on the billing processes and the fact of them being onerous is the fact that they're just they're historical.

Um it's the same processes that we had in place 10 years ago, and as we have seen the meeting numbers decline.

Um back in back in 2015.

The reason um it was everything was manual.

Everything was it wasn't uncommon to receive checks, it wasn't uncommon to see that sort of manual process.

It was literally half of an FTE of a job um to manage at that point in time.

We've seen this reduction in the amount of reservations that we're getting.

And the question that as we take a look at it, we talked about saying, hey, should we implement a reservation system?

We had conversations with our finance department about hey, what does it take to bring this into an online billing platform?

We just have to recognize that there's cost associated with that and there's staff time associated with that, and there's prioritization of that work that needs to come into play, and it it competes with other priorities.

And when we take a look at 200 reservations in a year, um the competition with the other priorities is a little bit tough, but um it's it's just a manual older process.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

Staff, thank you so much for assessing the space and with your recommendation.

But uh I have a concern about the theme, what uh communities book today.

I've been on the board of Napoleville Public Library for five years.

And practically I've seen how difficult it is to reserve a room there.

I had a challenge two weeks ago.

I wanted to book a hall at Napoleville Library for a small get together with the community.

I was struggling to book a hall.

I tried 95th Street Library, I tried with uh Danton Liability, all the places have been booked.

So practically I've seen how challenging it is, you know.

So closing this space, I feel you know, we are giving a lot of challenge to the community.

And long term, it is not a good thing to close this thing.

And Napolewill Municipal Building is the heart of our community, and they come to this place because of good facility, because of great parking, we have easy parking, you know, people get it, and other facilities, whatever we have.

So my suggestion or my recommendation is that let's review this thing once again and see how we can get the cost, security and other issues or challenges we are not facing it.

So that you know, we have the community as well as we so we take care of the security also.

So uh, you know, thank you.

Councilman Holzover.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just some comments about this um building, and I sit on the Riverwalk Commission, so forgive me, a lot of this is from memory from the stories of the people who are here when all this stuff happened.

If I get some of it wrong, I'll hear about it.

Um, but the history of this building, um a lot of people don't realize this, but back in 1981, which is a year before I was born, that's the year the river walk started.

Um there was a more or less municipal junk lot back here.

Okay, this is where they put old city vehicles.

There was an electric substation on the river.

There was no river walk to speak of.

There was a lot of dilapidated buildings.

Um this was a downtown that was very much at risk of decaying.

We had a forward thinking mayor at that time.

Um, I believe it was Chuck Mayor Chuck Rybacky, who, you know, the thought at that time was maybe we should move City Hall out of downtown to like where the police station is now.

And I believe he said no.

Um, you know, a great city needs to invest in a great towntown, including a world-class city hall and um a river walk model off the San Antonio Riverwalk.

And the building that was constructed later on under a different mayor, um is a um you know significant investment by the community.

For example, some of the marble in here was imported from Italy.

Okay, the expense to do that was put into this building.

And I think the feeling along the way has always been this is the people's house, and this is a place that the citizens of Naperville invested a significant amount of money in.

If you're a small family, it's probably over a thousand dollars, or your taxes went just to this building.

So, in my view, this is the people's house.

Um, and I I think in an era where there's a less and less trust of government, the look of us sitting in our house with Italian marble that the people who paid for it can't come into to have a meeting is not a good look.

I to Councilman McBroom's point, um I hope that some of the solutions to these technology issues are actually not that difficult.

And my law firm, we implemented a system called Calendly.

I think the subscription is 20 bucks a month.

Took us about a day to implement, and it it really solved this calendar problem.

And we have a lot more than 200 appointments a year.

Um credit crowd processing, EFT processing.

I would hope there'd be similar solutions where we're not even going out to like a bid to Granicus or something like that.

I I would hope these would be off the shelf things that can be done within the city manager's discretionary authority.

Um I asked city staff about the specific security concerns that have happened in this building.

I'm not going to outline them publicly because I don't think that's necessary or helpful to the cause, but I will just say that neither of them occurred during one of these outside group meetings.

Okay, so both incidents occurred uh due to some other cause.

So what that tells me is there is a security conversation that needs to happen.

Um, but it's a security conversation that needs to happen totally independent of this decision.

And I hope maybe a meeting or two into the new year we could have that security conversation about this building.

Spaces listed as alternatives in the memo, for example, the library, those places have security issues that aren't even present here.

They don't have a uh a guard at the at the door that even we do.

Um if there's not sufficient training for emergencies for the staff that are here, that should happen regardless of whether there's meetings, like they need to be trained on what to do in an emergency.

Um I'd make is is two of my colleagues raised many of these concerns um back in August when this was kind of first being discussed.

Um I don't think those have been addressed in the interim.

I I don't see why at this point we would um we would end this practice, and I I'll I will be voting no on this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Well, one opportunity I saw after we first got the report some time ago.

I I shared with um Mrs.

Schatz as well as Mr.

Krieger a few weeks back, and then I got a email.

I think the entire council got an email from our friend Ms.

Schweitzer with the same recommendation this week, and that would be to look at this from a uh potential compromise where City Hall has certain schedule meetings that are held every month, in fact, several times a week.

And with that in mind, the building is staffed for those meetings with security to make sure the building is safe.

So to potentially look at continuing the practice of renting rooms on those nights where we already have the staffing in place and the security guard here, I think that would be a reasonable compromise for us to at least test to see how it would work.

I don't see it being as any um real additional cost uh for our our staffing since the folks are already in place, and we could probably adjust those room rates based upon staff's uh study of what it costs for the cleaning and setups and everything else.

So I would be favor in in favor of of uh taking an approach like that versus trying to establish and staff a building that theoretically would have nobody here simply to bring a public meeting in uh or a I'm sorry, a private meeting in after hours on nights when the building is is technically closed.

Councilman Sayed, yeah.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I have a question for the staff.

So up to what time we accept outside meetings at the building, Mr.

Schatz?

Until 8 p.m.

8 p.m.

Okay.

And up to what time we have about in-house security.

Our security is currently here until midnight.

Okay.

So we have a security till midnight.

I know what meetings are here up to eight o'clock.

You know, so there is a security person here in the in the building till eight o'clock.

So why not we continue with that?

Well, just to clarify, I think that's only on those designated meeting nights.

Is that correct?

It is.

Um, I believe it's uh Monday through Friday.

Okay.

Okay, good thank you.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

A few thoughts um and appreciate the speaker's comments and my colleagues' comments and and agree with pretty much what everybody has said so far.

Um, and and I was interested in a compromise too, Maryland had some good ideas and and the way the mayor phrased it, I think could potentially make sense.

I don't know if I'm totally convinced, and and one reason is what we heard um as one of the sticking points of just having a security guard is that they may not know exactly who's in the meeting rooms and if there was an evacuation, they wouldn't know if everyone's gone.

Uh but I sort of hate to put that on our city staff if they're in a meeting.

Like if the idea is that we're gonna have a uh transportation advisory board meeting and Ted is in this room, or one or two TED staffers are in this room, I don't know that it should be their responsibility either, or that it really could be their responsibility to know what's happening downstairs while they're staffing a meeting up here.

Um I guess I'd sort of like to talk to staff maybe if we're gonna go that route.

I just don't know if I'm ready to go that route tonight.

I I'm interested in it, but I'd maybe want to hear from the staffers who would be in that position to see if they're comfortable with that, if that makes sense.

Uh maybe talk to our security officers who I know are not city staff, but see if they think that makes sense, what what might make more sense or not, and maybe talk to some of the uh public groups who we would be asking the schedule on maybe five nights a week or five nights a month, I'm sorry, instead of twenty to twenty-five nights a month to see if that could accommodate it.

I mean, if you figure 20 week nights a month gets you uh, you know, in two or three rooms gets you 50 to 60 meetings a month, and if we've got 200 a year, that might do it, but maybe it wouldn't, and I would hate to be in a situation where we're picking favorites of okay, you if you apply fast enough, you get it on the tab night, and another group doesn't.

So I think there's a further conversation to be had because I'm sensitive to staff.

I think staff knows already everything that we've set up here.

There, and I don't think they would have brought this to us unless they thought it was a serious issue that needed to be addressed.

So I'm sensitive to that as well.

Uh but for me at least I would like to see a little bit more information, a little more feedback from staff security and the and the public's groups before we make a change tonight.

And one thing I would add also on the proposal I would put forward would be that during normal city business hours that we still allow the room rentals to take place, but update the pricing to whatever the the current rates that you've identified for your costs would be.

Councilman White.

Uh I have a quick couple of questions.

Uh Chief uh I I'll always always tend to see uh a lot of police officers down in the parking lot.

Um oftentimes because they're running the run the running the vehicles they have to stay on that note because of the computer systems on it, but just uh that presence alone seems to be something that should be considered as well.

Um any idea about how often do we have them down here?

I don't, but we do have a police office in here that officers that work in the downtown area are encouraged to use.

Some will take meal breaks in the um in the council lunch rooms, things of that nature, report right in that officer room like that, sometimes during the day, sometimes in the evening.

Okay, great, great.

And um question for uh for staff.

When we have staff members staying after normal business hours, uh what's the I don't know, pay structures or an overtime for those individuals who stay?

Um how does that how does that part work Marcy?

That that's going to depend on the employee of whether it's an exempt employee or a non-exempt employee.

Okay, all right.

Um with the um the funds that are cre uh that are collected for people who are renting the place.

I don't know, that's something to consider if it hasn't already.

Councilman McBroom may have mentioned it uh, I think slightly as well.

Uh is that money that can be contributed to paying for those individuals who stay here late as maybe some incentive for maybe even wanting to be here to help um manage what's happening in the building uh along with the particular meeting that they are uh working, Mr.

Krieger.

Uh thanks, Mayor.

You know, uh we would like to maintain like supervisor discretion uh over that.

Um, you know, concerns with that um really would be uh for the non-exempt personnel, and um we like to keep uh a close watch on overtime costs associated for the city.

All right, thank you.

Councilman Kelly.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Just one other point I wanted to make um that I didn't mention earlier was I I'd be curious what the terms and conditions are for rental groups.

Um I'm guessing there probably are some, and maybe they've just checked without looking at them or checked a long time ago.

But I wonder if that might be helpful to kind of review those with rentals moving forward.

Um, because I know one of the specific incidents I think I heard about was a cooking incident, and it wasn't like a personal security problem.

Somebody was cooking and they shouldn't have.

To me, I'd say let's make sure everybody knows the rules very clearly, and maybe it's a one strike in your out, not even a two strikes in your out scenario if you have a group and we let them use the space and they are cooking when they shouldn't be.

Maybe you don't rent to moving forward.

So maybe there's some additional guardrails that you can tighten up.

Depends on what they're making.

Councilman Holzer.

Um thank you, Mayor.

Um a lot of interesting talk here, and uh I thought one of the most interesting questions was um what is the current security contract?

How is it staffed?

I think there was a misunderstanding that perhaps um security wouldn't be here if it weren't for these meetings.

Actually, it turns out that would be either way under other terms of the contract.

Um councilman Kelly's points, mayor's points are valid.

I honestly think these can be done without council action.

I mean, I I think those are totally within the discretion of staff to make those kind of minor changes.

But I I think with regard to what's on the agenda, I'm prepared to make a motion.

I will make a motion to disapprove the recommendation to discontinue meeting room rentals at the municipal center to all outside non-group governmental groups effect of July 1st, 2026, um, and authorized meeting room use and no charge between January 1 and June 30th, 2026 for those outside non-governmental groups that utilize municipal center meeting rooms during calendar year 2025.

Is there a second?

Second white.

There's a motion and a second.

I'm gonna I'm gonna offer a motion of substitution, and that would be to direct staff to bring back a report at a future meeting that would uh identify the um the potential compromise here of bringing in meetings on nights where we already have events scheduled as well as continuing to host those meetings during normal city business hours and charge the appropriate market rates for those.

Is there a second?

Second, Kelly.

Motion and a second roll call.

Hold tower?

No.

Jane.

Yes, Kelly.

I McBroom.

Aye.

Cyan.

No.

Way?

I Wilson.

All right.

Morley?

Yes.

Gibson.

No.

Motion passes 6-3.

Okay, we will resume public forum at this time.

Mrs.

Schatz, please call the next four speakers.

The next four speakers are Mary Ann Curtis, Steve Jarvis, Joe Huss, and Lori Melhart.

Good.

Good evening.

Mayor Worley and members of the council.

My name is Mary Ann Curtis.

I'm a Neighborville resident who often walks or takes the 530 Pace Bus from Martin Avenue apartments down Washington Street to attend meetings here.

I want to emphasize the necessity and benefits of coordinated planned accessibility to Neighborville's outdoor and indoor, public spaces for the health and safety of our entire community.

I was aghast to find the Martin Avenue pace bus shelter space for wheelchairs packed with snow, plowed from the streets after the Thanksgiving storm.

The message, cars rule.

If you don't have a if you don't have one, good luck trying to safely access public transportation.

Walking down sidewalks without going into the streets was impossible.

If you use a cane, a walker or wheelchair, forget it.

But this problem is not unique to snow days.

It rears its obstructive head in construction and delivery zones.

Just about anywhere, vehicles and pedestrians appear.

In general, there is a lack of consciousness about dangers a pedestrian faces, especially those with physical and mental impairments.

Accessibility is about openness, being able to enter, obtain what's possible.

The disability rights movement and Vietnam vets fought for this access for decades.

Coordinated planned accessibility requires city work, the city work with those plowing snow, doing construction to ensure that they don't block access to public sidewalks and bus stops.

Fast forward to today's agenda.

So I just want to say I think this discussion has been excellent.

I would like to also just say that I think that the example that inclusion, diversity, and equity manager Denise Williams set in her collaboration with uh North Central College students at the December 6th event that brought together seniors and youth was excellent.

And I was going to suggest, and it's come up from you anyway, that meeting with the community groups that meet here to think, you know, talk about ways that we can all work together.

So thank you.

Um I was pleased to see your discussion.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Steve Jarvis, followed by Joe Huss.

Good evening.

My name is Steve Jarvis, and I live in the Neighbor Commons community.

I'm here tonight because I believe it's important to share why CARES Criticals Data Center proposal should not move forward, and I ask you to vote no when it comes before you.

If I repeat myself, a point, if I repeat a point uh point made earlier tonight, please forgive me.

I missed it while I was enjoying the neighborhood trolley lights tour with my family.

It's something that makes our community special and worth preserving, and the reason Neighborville is one of the best places to live.

As a lifelong Naperville resident, as a father and an active voter, I have chosen to raise my family here because this city offers something truly special, a strong sense of community and a commitment to safety.

Nearly every day, my five-year-old son plays at Napri Commons Park, the heart of our neighborhood, where the children's laughter fills the air, grandparents watch with pride, and families making memories.

Our community is alive with dreams of children, many just taking their first steps and discovering the world around them.

To put their safety, peace, and childhood at risk would take the moment take away the moments that define not only their lives, but the very spirit of our community.

That's why this proposal feels so personal and so wrong.

A massive data center does not belong next to a playground or a neighborhood full of young families.

This is not just a building.

It's about constant noise, emissions, and 24-hour industrial activity.

Just steps away from where our kids sleep, play, and grow.

Our children only get one childhood.

Our families only get one neighborhood.

A corporation like KARIS can build a data center somewhere else.

Once something like this is approved, there is no undoing it.

There is no second chance to protect our children's health or preserve the peace of a neighborhood once it's gone.

So when it's time to vote, I'm asking you, please protect our families, protect our neighborhood, and say no.

Your decision will shape the lives of every child in our neighborhood for years to come.

Please remember your vote is not just a short-term choice.

It will echo throughout our community and be remembered by every family when we return to the polls.

Our children's future depends on your courage to stand with us and protect what makes Naperville home and one of the best places to live.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Joe Huss, followed by Lori Melhart, Joseph Lambert, and Teresa Belmonte.

I'm Joe Huss, and I've lived in Naperville for over 25 years, and I represent NEST.

It's time for Naperville to explore all its electricity options.

In February of 2024, IMEA asked its customers to sign an extension.

And based on the communities that signed the extension, IMEA's revenue will drop in half.

From the city's workshop, we know IMEA has historically been more expensive than alternatives, and it will be required by law to retire its largest plant three years into the proposed extension.

Replacing more than half of its generating capacity will be costly and uncertain.

And additionally, IMEA generates 3.5 billion pounds of pollution annually to power Naperville because its largest coal plant is one of the 10 worst in the country.

In the past, NES supported negotiating with IMEA to find an agreement.

But because of IMEA's take and pay language, we don't see a viable way to sign a contract.

We've spent almost two years discussing a contract with IMEA, and it's time to consider alternatives.

And just as IMEA needs notice, we need time to secure the best deal for Naperville.

We should start collecting requirements and get competitive bids from other providers.

This year, renewables accounted for 88% of the power generated added to the U.S.

grid.

And that's because they're the cheapest electricity sources.

And switching to clean energy isn't just about savings, but also jobs.

Clean energy jobs in Illinois have increased five times faster than the state's overall job growth rate.

In contrast, IMEA sends a quarter of our payments to an out-of-state coal plant.

Consequently, we urge the council to begin a transparent, resident-engaged process to determine the requirements for an RFP.

Fortunately, District 203 is a great example that the city can follow.

They engage students, staff, and external experts to develop an action plan.

The plan led to a $2 million investment in clean energy, which saves taxpayers more than $4 million.

Not surprisingly, 203's investment has a better return than the $50 million IMEA investment the city just approved.

District 203 gives us a blueprint for saving money and reducing pollution.

We request the city council vote to create a climate action plan like 203 has.

This would be the first step for planning an energy future that benefits Naperville ratepayers and helps to reduce our climate impact.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Lori Melhart.

Good evening.

My name is Lori Melhart, and I live in Naperville.

I am a licensed clinical social worker and I'm licensed in the state of Illinois, the states of Florida, the state of Maine, and the state of Virginia.

Because I am licensed in other states, I keep track of news and important information that might impact my clients who live there.

And I have definitely been keeping an eye on Virginia.

One of the things that hasn't really been touched on regarding the proposed data center that I want you all to keep in mind is the cost to our mental health.

Noise pollution, the constant low frequency hum that comes from data centers, HVAC, and cooling systems, can travel for miles and is difficult for the brain to filter out.

Residents living near these facilities have reported physical symptoms like migraine stress and disrupted sleep, which significantly affect their quality of life and mental well-being.

I know that we have heard about the physical problems involving the data center tonight, and I don't want to repeat, but I do want to say that I've been listening very carefully to the petitioner.

And one of the things I want to address is that they claim not all data centers are created equal.

That may be technically true, but we know KARIS has no prior experience with any data centers.

This would be their very first, and Naperville would be a giant experiment.

Keris's response seems to be just trust us and everything will be fine.

But this is not a risk our city leadership should be taking, especially given the intense resident opposition and public health, mental health, and safety concerns.

We know that there are going to be diesel generators, and that has been discussed at length tonight.

We also know that there is pollution involved already with the fact that we are 80% powered by coal here in Naperville.

I also know that in checking and reading up on each of you on your bios on the website that many of you care about the environmental impacts that these types of things happen in Naperville.

The data center does not sound like what you stand for to me.

Over 4,000 people have signed the petition against this.

And when I consider that number, I recognize that actually ironically, I have more clients in Virginia than I do in Illinois.

While it would be nice to have some more local people on my caseload, I definitely don't want to get them this way.

With 4,000 people having signed a petition against this, this issue alone could determine the outcome of the next wave of municipal elections.

We know financial pressure to support big business can be intense, but we trust and hope that you will hold firm to what you say you stand for.

That is why people voted for you.

That is why people will vote for you again.

The bottom line is that this data center would be too close to homes, neighborhoods, playgrounds, and schools.

It's going to degrade a lot of issues with physical health, but it's also going to impact mental health.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speakers are Joseph Lambert, Teresa Belmonte, Daniel Bully, and Maxwell Watkins.

Next speaker.

Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to address the council.

I joined my neighbors in opposition to the proposed data center.

My family moved into a new home in Naperville eight months ago.

We looked for about two years to find the perfect place to lay down roots for our family.

We have two kids, ages four and two.

We chose Naperville for the same reason.

It has been ranked as the best city in the nation.

Excellence in living, raising a family, safety, education, and a vibrant and strong community.

If this data center is permitted to be built, our home would be in its shadow.

We will see our property values plummet, and my family and neighbors will have to live with the burden of the noise and the pollution.

This data center is not compatible with a residential area.

If any of you were in our shoes with the possibility of this data center being on top of your neighborhood, I am pretty confident you would be opposed to it as well.

This will be a 24-hour heavy industrial industrial operation.

If you do any type of search on data centers, you'd be hard pressed to find an article that pops up that highlights the benefits to residents who live near them.

We've heard several times that not all data centers are created equal, but when you look at the headlines coming out of Virginia or Ohio, you'll find that those costs to communities all have the same themes.

Increased utility costs seem to be the rule versus the exception.

More concerning are the headlines that highlight the detrimental effects on public health, safety, and general welfare.

A recent article in Rolling Stone that just came out linked data centers to miscarriages and rare cancers, drawing concerns about their presence in Ohio.

And across Illinois, outside our state lines into our Midwestern neighbors in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin, there are rallying cries in opposition to data centers in their homes.

Communities from all walks of life and political persuasions have come together in mass in their local towns and municipalities to push back against these data centers that detract from the quality of life and that strain local resources.

There's cross-party resistance, and at a time when our politics could probably not be more divided.

Communities are coming together for the greater good of one another.

Last month in Georgia, voters made a statement by flipping two seats on a public service commission and breaking a one-party rule that lasted for 30 years.

And there was just an article that came out titled A Sleeping Giant in Michigan Politics Data Centers.

But we want Naperville to be different.

We don't want to get caught up in that noise.

We want to preserve the appeal of this city as the best in the nation.

That's the headline we'd like to keep.

The Keras critical proposal may very well fit somewhere else here in Naperville, but it is not compatible with a residential area.

The risk should remain with the petitioner and not fall on the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Daniel Bully, Maxwell Watkins, and Ernest Oxenek.

Uh Council, Mayor, Daniel Bully, Naperville, Illinois.

I just want to correct some.

I'm here to talk about IMEA.

I wasn't available at the last meeting.

A lot of disinformation about IMEA.

First of all, um the fact that the people say that it's more expensive.

That's not true.

Those studies were shown to use cherry pick data.

The real thing was I challenge anyone to come up with a single municipality that bought electricity cheaper than Aprilville.

You cannot do it.

I spent two months looking.

The other thing that a study just came out today by Illinois EPA and other state agency that says we're looking at serious shortfalls in electric generation starting in 2030 and getting worse as that decade goes on.

That means if we leave IMEA, we will be purchasing electricity from for-profit, uh 60% profit entities in a seller's market.

Uh they continue to say that this is going to get worse and worse, and even with all the resources and planned projects, we're still face shortages in 2030 and beyond.

What does this mean?

It means that we're gonna be in trouble.

Uh we'll also, if we leave IMA, we'll have to pay for the $8 billion and they're not ready for prime time battery costs.

The Governor Pricker has has just passed a law.

Um I assume you've heard of private equity funds.

Uh they're basically very good at finding what's the biggest profitable thing going on.

And right now they're aggressively going into power generation because that's where the money is.

So that's we'll be facing that also.

Um we need IMEA because they are a nonprofit.

Uh what does this mean?

Well, for instance, the CEO of the power market that we most likely buying energy from makes 30 times the uh salary of the CEO of IMEA.

Um, put another perspective, um, our city our CEO, our city manager, if if this was a public corporation, he would be paid his cop and state compassion package would be between four and five million dollars a year.

That's the difference between nonprofit and profit.

Um, a couple other things.

Um another thing that everybody's talking about coal.

Well, if you understand and have said this before, and no one has refuted me.

I I put out a uh a critical thinking exercise, no one commented on it.

I'll put a hundred dollars up right now if that's allowed.

To somebody that do this, any decision we make will not affect the coal generation plants, either one, one bit.

They will keep on going on because the way that this grid works, and uh with all respect, uh Councilman Kelly, you told about it a few months ago, that if all this other generation goes down, but ours doesn't, we don't get that electricity.

It's shared.

That's how the grid works.

This whole grid was was designed as a public utility.

And when they switched over to deregulation, they didn't change it.

Actually, they tried to change it.

And you know what happened?

That's where we got the 2003 blackout that uh the East Coast in Canada.

Uh 90 people died and billions and billions of dollars in damage because they were switching over from big regulation to deregulation.

They were changing the reliability program.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Maxwell Watkins.

Hi.

Uh hi, my name is uh Max Watkins, and I'm here like many others to speak out against the proposed Keras data center proposal, which I'm aware is not agendized, but I nevertheless believe being proactive on this issue is critical.

Uh, I'm a research scientist by trade, I have a PhD in chemistry, and I work full-time at Argonne National Lab.

Although data center pollution is not my subfield, as this is an issue that is deeply important not only to me, but also to my friends and co-workers, some of whom live in Naperville and Lyle neighborhoods close to the proposed site.

And as I consider effective and accurate science communication to be the most important thing I might do with my time, I promise that I've applied as much due diligence here as possible as informed by my professional training.

There are two main issues that I would like to briefly discuss.

The first is something I spoke about at the planning and zoning committee meetings, and that is the risk of the substantial increased strain on the electrical grid from these types of facilities.

As our planet continues to warm dramatically over even just the next few decades, we will all face extreme weather events, such as extended record-breaking heat waves that will far exceed anything that we have ever seen.

Bluntly, we are grossly underprepared as a society.

Uh, but to stay on topic, I would strongly encourage all of you to consider that the increased likelihood of outages demonstratably associated with not only this facility, but others that are likely to be built if this one is approved, represent a real danger to electrical stability and therefore the safety and health of residents under these extreme high demand events that absolutely will be in our future.

Keras has provided no estimates of how these the frequencies of outages might increase with the additional strain from this facility.

And along those lines, didn't bother to incorporate any of that into estimates they are providing for the emissions of their diesel generators either.

The second issue I would like to talk about is the noise pollution from these facilities, as has been brought up uh by several speakers already.

Uh during the planning and zoning committee meetings, Keras repeatedly cited the generally high level of noise already present in the immediate area, mostly due to the freeway, as justification for their argument that the noise pollution levels are okay that they're bringing.

This is so this is a deeply cynical argument.

As not only the idea that the problem is already bad, making it a little bit worse is fine, it's just insane at face value.

More importantly, the types of noise put out by these facilities, well, often technically within regulations are not something new that was certainly not considered when virtually any of the existing noise pollution control rules were written.

Research has shown that the types of constant noise emitted by these data centers, in particular the low frequency bands, uh are that are you know most difficult to mitigate, they travel the furthest, can even at levels that are hard to consciously perceive will disrupt sleep and induce stress, which can lead to various cardiovascular and neurological issues, as has been brought up by others.

Uh, to conclude, to quote a brief peer-reviewed report published earlier this year, aptly titled Global Data Center Expansion in Human Health: A Call for Empirical Research.

Little is known about the long-term health comes, health outcomes in data center host communities.

And proactive mitigation and targeted research are important to safeguard public health.

Honestly, though, I would say with confidence, given everything I've read, initial indicators are not good.

I am more than happy and do plan to provide peer review literature to the council so that it can make clear the potential problems associated with this facility.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final speaker is Ernest Oxennecht.

Hello, Mayor Worley and City Council.

Um I've been an April resident for 19 years now, and I just want to talk about uh Keras Center, uh, the Keras Data Center.

I object to it.

I don't think it should be built.

Uh wanted to bring up a few issues.

One, they're talking about this is only phase one.

We haven't even considered what impact phase two would have.

Um clearly, if we start with phase one, I don't think there's any way you would ever stop phase two.

And that concerns me greatly.

Uh next thing is the diesel generation.

Um, I'm familiar with diesel emissions.

I worked in the industry of emission controls, and those engines are 450 kilowatt engines, 24 of them.

And when they run in a genetic, they run at full power as opposed to a diesel truck going down the road at maybe 30% power on the highway.

It's a much greater level of emission emission than the highway trucks and everything like that.

Uh, the other thing is gen sets, standby gen sets, the diesels generators, the gen sets are typically tier three emissions in this country.

And I noticed that it just says where they have a pledge to do tier four.

That's is that legally adequate to ensure that we don't have that type of you know, horribly producing emissions uh built in April.

And then uh want to get to the noise emissions problems.

We talked about some other speakers spoke about that, and I understand you guys went and heard one, but the consideration is true.

The one speaker mentioned winter time versus summertime.

They have variable frequency drive fans on these things, and that noise is gonna greatly increase during summertime.

It's gonna be tremendously louder.

And then with all of that, you have to think about the heat loading this is adding.

You know, we have these heat island effects in cities already.

This data center is gonna generate so much heat, the energy that goes into it has to go somewhere, it gets turned into heat.

So all that gigawatts of energy, the electric energy they are consuming is going to be adding heat load to our community.

And that's something that I'm very concerned about.

Um that's gonna affect the residents nearby and our nature preserve center in the area.

And last thing I would like to say is I just want to comment um about the IMEA contract.

Uh France has done some very innovative stuff to control energy costs.

One of the things they've done is mandate solar panels over parking lots of 80 spaces or more.

I think this is something that we should consider and have that connect to our grid.

Solar power generates power when we have peak loads, peak air conditioning loads in summertime, it matches well.

We should be doing something like that.

And then battery costs are also coming down.

Iron sulfide batteries are the new stationary battery and the significantly reduced cost.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next is City Council Public Worm.

As a reminder, per the codes, council members have three minutes to speak during public warm and can speak up to two times.

Councilman Holzone.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I want to thank all the residents who came out here today and put so much effort into researching um the health impacts and the welfare impacts of a major development in your neighborhood.

So whichever way it goes, um, thank you for being engaged in the democratic process.

I also want to thank our planning and zoning commissioners and the developer who put forth a lot of good faith effort um to try to meet resident demands and um you know put forth the information that they that they can to best make their case.

Um of the decisions we make here on city council are subjective.

They allow for feeling as an example whether Napraville's public art should be more monument focused or more performance focused, what looks appropriate for a space.

It's basically decided about what we feel is right, looking at the evidence, and more or less it's a gut check.

To be clear, this is a case where there is an objective standard that has to be met before we even get into any subjective factors.

We have a duty to uphold the law when it comes to objective factors.

So let's start out with some terminology.

A permitted use.

Okay.

When you have a zoning district, things that are permitted use are by right allowed.

They are what the district is intended to have.

So in an ORI district, if for example, there was a proposal for a cafeteria that we attached to the uh Nokia campus.

This wouldn't even be for before city council.

Even if you didn't like the way that the um campus was laid out or something like that, as long as it wasn't requiring a variance, that is a permitted use.

That's what's intended to be built under the zoning code.

A conditional use is not the rule, it is the exception to the rule.

Unless there's a reason that the developer can meet, and the burden of proof is on the developer to show that.

The general rule is denial of conditional use.

Um, I'm gonna ask Commissioner Janermere if it's all right to bring back the final slide of his presentation.

If staff could put that up there, uh his portion of the presentation was the four standards.

Um to use a bowling analogy.

Uh I would say if you um have a permitted use that you're asking for, you've got to strike and it's automatic.

If you're asking for a conditional use, the first role uh you didn't hit all the pins, and so you've got to hit the four remaining pins.

And those are what's required of a um conditional use.

It's a few slides back, I believe.

Okay, thank you.

So I want to focus on one of these standards in particular, and these are all musts.

These aren't optional.

We don't have in my view, any discretion to determine whether these yes or no standards are met.

Standard four is that the establishment of the conditional use is not in our lost.

I can talk loud.

All right, hold on, hold on.

We're we're trying to figure it out here.

Something may happen with our thing.

There we go.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, standard four is that the establishment of the conditional use is not in conflict with the adopted comprehensive master plan.

To be very clear, the adopted comprehensive master plan envisions medium density residential eventually being used for the space.

And that's not hard to understand because if you zoom out and look at the area, it's surrounded by either parks, neighborhoods, a spiritual center, or a sensory garden.

Um there are ways that people have tried to kind of argue around this standard, but I'm a lawyer by trade, and I just don't think that they meet the standard.

One of the arguments around it is hey, the I 88 quarter study published by NDP, you know, maybe argues for it.

But we just budgeted a lot of money for the city to do its own I-88 corridor study next year, and in the budget meetings, I actually specifically asked why are we spending money on this when NDP did one?

And the answer from staff is the city has never looked at this issue to from a comprehensive standpoint, and we've never adopted this into our master plan.

So, my view that's an extraneous document that is just not meeting standard number four.

Um, the other arguments you hear I view are uh as somewhat circular, and the big argument would be well, it's a conditional use under this zoning code, but conditional uses are not permitted unless standard four is met.

Um so the argument of well, why would it be a conditional use if standard four exists?

I think it's it's just asking us to ignore one of the four mandatory standards we have to hit here.

Um, I also for the record think that um standard one is not met.

I won't go into the reasons for that here.

Um, but I would just say, you know, the the threat has been intimated that maybe if we don't allow this development, we could face a lawsuit for for denying it.

But I think if we just ignore the law, don't apply standard four here and grant uh granted development.

I'm not sure why the opposite of that wouldn't also be true that we would um be subjected to legal risk.

So that's my legal opinion on that.

If someone wants to prove me wrong, I'm open to it.

Thank you for Mr.

Cruz.

I think he made some of the same points very well.

Um that's all I have to say, Mr.

Mayor.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have two uh quick things.

One is um on the data center, thank you for everybody for speaking.

I'm I'm not ready to talk about the substance of it myself, but I'm curious if staff can give us just a very high level of um the expected timeline for this when it may be on actually an agenda uh and if if we know what the timeline might look like.

Okay, counselor.

Uh we are um uh working on all the required ordinances and documents uh trying to finalize them.

They are rather rather complex, and so we're targeting January 20th, but it's premature to say whether we'll be on that agenda for sure.

But um, that's what we're targeting.

And we won't know for sure until the agenda would be published for the 20th meeting on uh what the 14th, is that right?

January 14th.

That's right.

The January 20th agenda gets published on January 14th.

We hope to know sooner than that, um, but that would be the latest we would know.

All right, thank you.

And then uh just one other topic uh briefly on IMEA.

Thank you to the speakers who spoke on that, uh, Mr.

Huss and Mr.

Bully.

Um, one uh there's a lot packed in there, and and we'll be talking about that more soon, I think.

But just one specific point that Mr.

Bully raised that I was wondering if either our electric utility director or city attorney could uh make a brief comment on was the uh question of uh whether Naperville would potentially be subject to additional costs related to the recent uh state law that included a battery um requirements and uh whether or not Naperville would be subject to those additional costs, regardless of whether we were purchasing our power from IMEA or a potentially different source than IBA.

Director Growth.

Brian Growth Electric Utility Director.

Um at this time, the city of Napoleville is not subject to those battery costs.

Uh at this time we don't believe that we would be subject to in the future, but that is always subject to state law change.

And and very briefly, what is the reason that you and I know not a final opinion necessarily in state law could change, but at this point, what is your uh basis for thinking we would not be subject to those?

Uh we are a municipal owned electric utility, not an investor-owned utility.

All right, thank you.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, ma'am.

So regarding IMEA contract, thank you to all the speakers who came and spoke in favor and opposing also.

And uh it shows your passion, it shows your engagement, and you both care about this thing, you know.

And I'm happy that we have a good discussion on this thing.

We all as a community are learning about everything, you know.

So thank you so much to all the speakers who came and spoke.

And regarding data center, so data center, I have been in the meetings of planning and zoning from day one.

I have attended all the meetings at 11, 11:30.

We have been there in this thing.

First, I wanted to thank all the commissioners who are volunteers who have been in this room with all the speakers and everybody.

And uh appreciate them for their time and their service.

I also wanted to thank all the speakers who came today.

I know it's not there on the agenda, data center, but still again, you know, your passion, you care about yourself, our community, and all those things.

Thank you so much for coming and speaking today.

And I have seen some small kids still there.

I know it's a bedtime, but still they're here.

So thank you so much to all the speakers.

I also wanted to acknowledge the community who have written hundreds of emails to me, hundreds of uh text messages, hundreds of uh social media posts.

I've written so many, yeah, I've got so many things.

I also met some of the residents at at their places, spoke to them, and they also spoke to me with their consensus.

I have highest acknowledgement for the highest respect for your engagement.

And I just wanted to say we are here to listen.

We are here to support, we are here to represent every community member.

So we are listening to you all, and we will keep on listening in our next meeting, and we need to listen to everybody.

And we have to listen to the data center attorney also who is representing.

And then only we will be taking a decision about this thing.

And today.

Okay.

So that's it, you know.

So from my side, and we'll keep on listening to you.

Thank you so much for your engagement.

And again, passion.

Thank you.

Councilman White.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Just real quick.

Uh as the other speakers have said, I really appreciate the passion that you all who have spoken on this issue have demonstrated.

I'm gonna I'm holding my comments as well until I get all the information in when this actually gets on the agenda.

But um I personally just love how we actually see our our processes in our uh in our system here in the in our community that shows we have uh involved residents um that have passion and they're concerned about what's going on.

So I just wanted to pass that appreciation off to you all.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh some similar comments to the folks have already spoken.

Uh really appreciate the residents coming out tonight.

Um the petitioner and and all the meetings we've gone to at the PCC and the commissioners.

Um I don't have a uh any particular comments to make on it uh tonight.

Um I guess with with regard to the IMEA, um, as I think uh as Mr.

Bully talked about earlier.

Uh there is a disconcerning uh report about future energy concerns.

Um just you know, I I've talked about it before.

I've talked about the um price impacts that we'll have on um our our residents so um before um so I'm certainly concerned with certain concern with it, particularly with regard to uh the issue surrounding IMEA contract and whether to I guess not renew.

Um so for me, Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, well lastly, um I want to thank all of our speakers here for the respectful dialogue tonight.

This is part of what the public process is supposed to be like is council being respectful of a public that comes to us with a challenge and the uh public hearing feedback from the city council and continuing to work through the process together.

So we will have more conversations at future meetings, I'm sure, where we will see you then.

In the meantime, this is our last council meeting of 2025, and I want to just take a moment to think about those families who had some really tough times this year.

Um, our city had a lot of great things happen, and we went through some really challenging moments with families who um had some great losses in their lives.

So as we go forward with our holiday celebrations and and other things into 2026, let's also keep in mind those who are less fortunate or who have really suffered in 2025 and keep them in our prayers.

And with that, new business.

Councilman Holzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so just to catch the public up on what uh transpired before this meeting.

So we had a um a closed session discussion to discuss uh confidential items related to MDR proposals, which contained um numbers and uh things that um were shared with us in confidence by vendors and which that's our duty to keep um close hold and and we will do that.

Um there's been discussion about having um further uh conversations in in closed session behind closed doors about the future energy strategy.

Um council has been asked to provide um their input by email regarding uh what IMEA submitted to us.

Um my understanding is is the vote count is is that I mean there is not there.

Um so what I envision, I'm I'm happy to have discussion before I make the formal request, but what I envision doing is requesting hands in the air for an item on the January 20th public city council agenda to hold a public discussion of the IMEA contract extension proposal presently before the council, which is for service beginning October 1st, 2035, and then at the end of the meeting, I would anticipate we would follow and we sorry, we would schedule uh an up or down vote um at a future meeting to be decided at that time, and also to um direct staff to terminate further negotiations related thereto.

And also to um direct staff to terminate further negotiations related there too.

If if we if we do not move forward, do you want me to say that again?

I think that was awfully long.

Councilman, would you take into consideration the probability of the data center coming to us on that same meeting and that potentially turning that meeting into a marathon well beyond what anybody would ever want to go through if we if we had the opportunity?

I I'm I'm all with you on bringing it back on a future agenda.

I just don't think it's it's timing is right while we're in the middle of the potential data center discussion.

So I hear it, but one of the things I heard was it's unsure, it's uncertain whether data centers actually even coming up in January.

I would also add that there's a certainty angle here too for the data center.

They don't know their power sourcing right now.

If we at least give them the answer, and if it's the S, then they know if it's no, then they know that.

I mean, this is a huge decision, this data center, right?

35 megawatts or what whatever the the final total would be.

Um it seems to me like heart before the horse to say, gosh, we gotta sneak this data center in before we know how the energy is gonna be to source it.

So given that the data center discussion, we're not even sure if they're able to go in January, but we do know IMEA's been asking us since March for an answer, and we have the votes on council.

I mean, we we've taken this vote behind closed doors.

Um I just I I think there's a transparency angle here too.

I think the public deserves to know where we stand on this.

This should not be handled privately councilwoman Jay.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um just a point of clarification for Councilman Holtelzer.

Are you pre- I I hear two things in your in your proposal?

One to um discuss our response to IMEA's uh counter proposal or response to our counter proposal.

I don't know if I said that correct.

That's one point.

The other point you mentioned was hands in the air for termination.

Um I'm sorry.

Uh I just want to clarify.

That part got I got a little bit lost in my notes.

Okay.

Um I will just openly say the the first version I had drafted of this was just an up or down vote on the contract itself.

Just an update or just uh open for discussion.

Right.

So if there's an up or down vote on the agenda, then we can have an open discussion about it.

Would that be your preferred path?

Do you think that's cleaner?

I think I think, yeah, making any kind of decision regarding that.

I I feel um together is is too complex.

Um, but to carry our discussion um in an open forum, I think is I I would support that.

I'm sorry, I don't think I heard your preference.

How would you like them to do that?

I would support I would support an open discussion around their response to our counter proposal.

Okay.

Councilman Kelly, is this related to Councilman Holzars?

It is.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um, so I I would agree with what councilwoman Jane just said that I'm I'm in favor of uh an open discussion, an open session at a council meeting about the direction.

Um couple points of clarification.

One is I and there was a lot in there, so I might have misheard, but I think I might have heard Councilman Holzhauer say we took a vote behind closed doors.

I I would say I don't think we've taken any vote at all behind or in front of any doors at this point.

There's certainly been discussion and conversation, but I I would say there's been no vote at all.

We're gonna have to take a vote at some point um in the near future.

I think we should get it on an agenda.

My preference would be to give staff a little discretion.

Our next meeting is not for over a month away, and how that's gonna play together between data center and IMEA.

I do think there's a reasonable substantive argument about what should happen first.

Um, but I I would not want to require staff to put them both on the same meeting.

That I don't think it would even happen practically.

We couldn't get through it.

Um so I I would be in favor of bringing this to a open council session and the relatively near future, but just giving staff some direction as to when that would have discretion as to when that should happen, and leaving it a relatively uh open question in terms of how we're gonna proceed.

Councilman McBroom related to Councilman Holzer.

Yes, Mayor, thanks.

Um I would like the IMEA discussion uh to to happen and uh sooner than later.

I'd rather the vote be right now.

Um, but um, you know, I understand I also I understand the practicality.

I I think logistically um if the data center vote is on on the 20th.

I don't I don't see how you do both.

Um so I'd I prefer to be the done sooner or later, I but I don't um I don't I don't see that I don't see how that's possible.

Um but uh open discussion, I always want open discussion, I always want transparency.

Um but uh you know I I think that agenda item would be would be a vote.

I mean that's that's what I'm hearing, councilman, and um so that that would be very important to me that it wouldn't just be a a discussion and another discussion and another discussion that we would actually make a decision.

So councilwoman Jane, a follow-up.

Um that a discussion could lend itself to possible a counter, right?

So it may not be a complete decision, is it would that be correct?

Would that be a possibility that comes out of an open discussion?

Well, it yes.

Okay.

Yes, I suggest to clarify basically.

If you was it put on the agenda as a uh proposal to do a uh you you want to take a vote at a particular meeting, right?

I I think thank you for I think we could probably get both of the concerns is my thought.

Um and the way I would suggest we do it is we put an item on the agenda, but we have all the options we always have at our disposal, right?

We can table, we can amend, we can motion substitute, we can do whatever, but just having a proposal to vote on gives us this meet, you know, to start talking about.

Um so that you know, open to any other input, but I think I can make my motion around that.

Councilman, I would gather to say, and we've got some more lights lit up here, but um if you had some flexibility on the January 20th, we can test the question with the hard January 20th date if you like, or if you have some flexibility, I think there's likely consensus to go forward.

Yeah, I would um I would say my one ask of staff would be um if actually they could ask the data center, hey, would you like an answer to this?

Because I I think it might help them honestly to to know and um I do think there's some value in knowing the energy policy before you know the you know the next major energy user that's coming in April, it probably affects their pricing and affects everything for them, right?

Mr.

Krieger, uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um uh based on the feedback, um, if the motion could be to direct staff uh to place it on the next uh available city council meeting where the data center is not being discussed, um that would work.

Uh what that means is that on January 20th, data center says hey, we're not ready, we could have the uh discussion at that meeting.

I think that's a great solution.

Okay, councilman Sayed was it did you have a follow-up on on this particular thing before we okay go ahead?

Thank you, Mayor.

So IMEA has been in discussion for the last two years.

I'm tired of this now.

I have been hearing two years.

But we have not taken any decision, and still we talk about taking the thing on a discussion.

So maybe you know, next meeting we should decide.

We should just yes or no, whatever it is, you know, but it's it's two years.

And we have been dragging this decision.

I was sitting there two years ago listening to the community, listening to experts and all those things.

Two years after that, I'm here today, and I still it isn't the same thing, discussion.

So I think it is time for us, it's high time that we should take decision and move forward.

And uh so that is my thought.

And regarding data center, yes, both are related to each other, IMEA and data center.

So maybe let's vote on IMEA and the next meeting and bring data center or discussion, hearing, and all those things, you know, so that it helps us everybody.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Holzer.

Okay, thank you, Mayor.

I'm requesting hands in the air for an item on the public city council agenda for an up or down vote on the IMEA contract extension proposal presently before the council for service beginning October 1st, 2035.

Okay, councilman's looking for hands in the air.

Anyone we have a point of clarification for um McBroom point.

Councilman Clarification.

So thank you.

Um and I was this is follow-up to Councilwoman Jane as well.

So up or down vote.

I the way I see it, that I I think there's three options.

We we renew, we vote to renew, we revote to we vote to end negotiation, or we direct staff to negotiate further, right?

That's a fair point.

Um can I read restate that to get rid of up or down?

All right, Mayor, I'm requesting hands in the air for an item on the public city council agenda for a vote on the IMEA contract extension proposal presently before the council for service beginning October 1st, 2035.

Everybody good with that language?

And that at a council meeting to be defined.

At a uh council meeting, I think Mr.

Krieger, you said the first council meeting where the data center is not, whatever that is.

All right, we're feeling good.

Hands in the air, support?

Got them all.

Any other new business?

All right, with that, councillor.

Uh Mr.

Mayor, members of the city council, a motion would be in order to go into closed session to discuss the operation by a municipality of a municipal utility when the discussion involves contracts related to the purchase sale or delivery of electricity or the results or conclusions of load forecast studies under section 23 of 5 ILCS 120 slash two C and to automatically adjourn the city council meeting immediately afterward.

So move white.

Second Kelly.

The motion and second, all those in favor sign aye.

Oh I'm sorry, we have to do a roll call.

I'm just told.

So we're gonna do a roll call vote on that.

Orly?

Yes.

Gibson?

No.

Jane?

Yes.

Holzauer.

No.

Kelly?

Aye.

McBroom?

Aye.

Cyan?

No.

White?

Aye.

Wilson?

All right.

Motion passes 63.