Here we go.

Good evening and welcome to the January 20th Naperville City Council meeting, the first meeting of 2026.

Roll call.

Orly?

Here.

Gibson.

Here.

Hold tower.

Here.

Jane.

Here.

Kelly.

Here.

Big Broom.

Here.

Cyan.

Yep.

White.

Wilson.

Here.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge to the flag of the United States of America.

One nation under God.

Individual with literary justice.

Our first item on the agenda is public forum.

I'd like to remind everyone of the citizen participation rules in the city's municipal code for speaking at city council meetings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

If this occurs, you will be asked to stop immediately, and if it can continue 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 disruption is meant to intimidate those speaking, and I will not allow it in the chambers.

Audience members with signs, the signs must not block any other audience members' 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 dais, that is to your right.

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.

A decision that could be that could have a significant cost ramifications for residents and businesses, and something this is Council member these something this council will be remembered for.

Our approach is grounded in economics.

We don't have any hidden agendas.

We don't ignore environmental issues, but we look at them in perspective relative to cost.

Contrary to claims on social media, affordable Naperville is self-funded, independent, and has no ties to IMEA.

Our members bring energy experience, and we have conducted extensive research to inform our recommendation.

Based on that work, and as outlined on the newsletters we have sent you, we support signing the IMEA contract extension.

We also advocated for protections for residential electricity rates, which are now included in the proposed legal agreement between the City of Naperville and CARIS.

Looking ahead, we plan to expand our work to other cost areas, including property tax to ensure Naperville remains affordable for all residents.

With that said, I'd like to discuss the transparency issue with the MDR RFP results.

Member directed resource RFP results were received at the end of October, and still the public has not seen the results.

Illinois and Naperville regulations promote transparency, so hopefully there is a positive response soon.

In the meantime, while respecting confidential confidentiality of the bidders, the following questions should be answered.

These will be sent to you in email, but for now I want to highlight a couple of them.

How many bids met all the requirements outlined in the RFP?

For those that did not, or explanations given?

If so, what were they?

Second, the RFP requested a low following option, which is what IMEA provides.

This is important because it adds, it can add significant cost to supply electricity.

Was such an option offered by any bidder?

If so, what was the approximate premium expressed as a percentage of the book of the block energy bid?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Jim Pillar, followed by Richard Sternell and Marilyn Schweitzer.

This is you, right, Mr.

Ford.

This is yours.

Good evening.

My name is Jim Flower, and I'm a member of the Public Utility Advisory Board.

In mathematics, there's a little known subset of numbers called imaginary numbers.

The best way to understand their use is to look at the example.

What is the square root of four?

Most people will quickly return the answer too.

But when asked, what is the square root of negative four?

Very few people will provide the correct answer, which is the number the imaginary number two I.

In the world of carbon emissions accounting, it's probably a little strong to use the word imaginary because it's a billion-dollar industry and a very profitable to some.

Case in point, Naperville paid $20,000 to perform a greenhouse gas inventory last year.

I'm not sure of its use, but we have it just in case.

The global standard for measuring such things is the greenhouse gas protocol.

Without getting into the weeds, there are two methods of calculating the protocol's scope two carbon emissions, location-based and market-based.

I'm going to rename these real life-based and paper-based, because those are better descriptors.

Naperville's real life emissions are based on three factors.

Where was the power generated?

What uh generated that we used, how much did we use, and what were the emissions from those plants.

Fortunately, Naperville is surrounded by nuclear power plants, 11 to be precise.

These plants provide 50% of Illinois's total electricity.

Nuclear-generated electricity has zero carbon emissions.

Also surrounding us are many natural gas power plants that reliably start up when needed.

Natural gas is a clean burning fuel.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of this map, but you get the point.

What is not surrounding Naperville are coal plants, and it is safe to say that when you plug your toaster in in the morning, not a single electron travels from Prairie State or Trimble County to your home.

Naperville's real-life carbon emissions are very low.

In fact, a routine report issued by Comed and distributed to the PUAB quarterly confirms this.

That's the real world.

Now let's switch over to the paper emissions world that some people live in.

This is where you'll hear the familiar Naperville burns 80% coal, or Naperville emits XYZ tons of CO2 because of the coal plants.

No, it doesn't.

Before you were voted in today, and long after you leave office, Naperville is a low carbon emitting community because of something you have no control over location.

A decision to leave IMEA will impact how we look on paper and will make some people feel good.

That's real damage to real people.

Make the compassionate decision, keep our electricity affordable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Richard Sternell, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening.

My name is Rich Chernobyl.

I've been a resident of Naperville for over 25 years.

During my freshman college stack class studying for engineering, the main takeaway is figures don't lie, but liars figure.

The statement could be more appropriate for the folly of green energy.

With regard to the subject of extending the IMAID contract before the City Council has been brought to my attention that the council is strongly considering converted to green energy.

Unfortunately, the City Council has not been very transparent about their deliberations on the matter.

If anything, it would appear the council has gone out of its way to exclude the public.

Unlike the Illinois science guy, I worked with him at Boeing, sets a plastic globe afar for a dramatic effect.

Contrast that the authors that I've included the uh a short executive version of the paper by Lyndon and Happer in their paper Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuels Climate Science.

They completely discount the argument that CO2 gases will cause irreparable harm to the Earth's atmosphere.

Lindon is a Sloan professor of atmospheric science, airmaris at MIT, and Happer is a professor emeritus at Department of Physics at Princeton University.

Naperville has invested significant sum of money to make the coal plant clean energy producer, and like wind turbines and solar energy farms, is my understanding that the plant will produce enough economically reliable energy for upwards of 30 years.

Additionally, the pamphlet Green Energy is an inflationary bootog boondogle.

Wind and solar require 10 to 15 times the raw, the raw materials produce an equivalent quantity of electricity that's coal, natural gas, and nuclear power.

And I got a graph in your doctors to show about how much is needed to produce a thousand gigawatts.

Simply put, you're dramatically increasing your cost just to get the same product in the end.

The perfect policy to destroy the economy.

Lastly, it would be remiss if I didn't mention the power requirements of the proposed dentist.

But from the Keras website that they have up now, Naperville Data Center, they said Naperville is among the most reliable electric utilities in Illinois.

Reliability ratings that are considerably better than those the COM had.

COT only makes up 0.4% of the atmosphere.

Man contributes only 0.0016% of the CO2 to the atmosphere.

Bottom line, it's fool's goal to believe the green energy is the holy grail with regard to minimizing environmental impact.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The final speaker in public forum is Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening.

So I want to express my thanks and support for the Naperville Police Department and its leadership and my appreciation to the City Council for properly funding them.

Not every community is so fortunate.

In many places, the level of trust between residents and police is easy to see in everyday life.

Whether people interact comfortably with officers or avoid them altogether.

In my own experience, international visitors once surprised me by asking to have their photos taken with local police officer.

And the officer was happy to oblige.

That's the kind of interaction that reflects trust.

I moved to Naperville in 1987, and over the years I've watched this community work deliberately to improve its policing, beginning in the early 1990s with the department embraced community policing philosophies, and successive chiefs have strengthened those efforts by priority prioritizing officer morale, data-driven policing, transparency, and accountability.

Chief Aries took on leadership in 2021 during an extraordinarily stressful time for both the community and the department.

Their stress has not let up.

And yet he has continued to advocate for needed technology and mental health initiatives while emphasizing the importance of strong relationships with the people they serve.

As he has said, we are paid to be bothered.

Mutual trust is essential.

Communities do not reach out to police, they do not trust, and bad actors exploit that fear.

I saw this firsthand in Colorado, where immigrant owned businesses were targeted because of deep seated fears of police and government.

Fears that local police had to work hard to overcome for the good of the entire community.

Trust is built through body cameras, clear identification, and professional training.

It is undermined by aggressive, intimidating, heavily armed, masked or unidentified individuals who may or may not be acting in an official capacity.

Those situations create fear and confusion and run counter to the decades of progress made by our police department that is hard on the community, and I suspect in some ways even harder on our officers.

Professional protesting on professional improved force law enforcement tactics is necessary, not only to respond to events elsewhere, but to protect what we have worked so hard to build here.

I appreciate our police, recognize the stress they are under and fully support their commitment to serving our entire community fairly and responsibly.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And now is time for any city council members who have an item for public forum as a reminder for the council members have three minutes to speak during public forum and can speak up to two times.

Councilman Holzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

First of all, I want to just thank everyone for coming out tonight.

It's great when we see members of our community engaged on an issue.

Okay, how's this?

Okay.

Um, first of all, thank you to everyone in the crowd who came out tonight.

It is wonderful to see an engaged community that cares about issues that are important to all of us.

Um, I do want to make sure that in this very important discussion we're having tonight about a data center, it is not lost that we have another very important discussion coming up, which is um Naperville's um energy future and whether or not we renew with coal power, and that that is literally coming up in February, so I just want to make sure that that is not forgotten.

Um with regard to um one of the members of our PUAB uh I just won, which is our public utilities advisory board's comments a minute ago.

Um, I wanted to ask a question of Mr.

Groth if that's right, Mr.

Mayor.

Go ahead.

Okay, um Mr.

Groth, uh when Naperville ratepayers are paying for their electricity, is it fair to say um that money is going from the city of Naperville to IMEA?

Director Groth.

Brian Growth Electric Utility Director.

Yes.

And is it fair to say that a significant part of IMEA's dollars then flow to the Tremble County 1 and 2 coal plants and the um Prairie State Energy Campus coal plant in Southern Illinois?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so my comment there is when our dollars are flowing to pay for coal power.

I think it is disingenuous to say that is just paper and not the real world.

And um I am noticing on what appears to me an unfortunate trend, which is a board which is supposed to be focused on facts and figures and neutral recommendations is increasingly making what to me seem like anti-science, anti-climate science political arguments, which do not belong in a commission.

The next appointee that comes forward for this commission, I am going to put a hold, ask for counsel to do review so we can do diligence due diligence on this issue, make sure our boards are actually representative of our community.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilman McBroom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I appreciate uh everyone's comments.

Uh, Mr.

Philar, I was gonna address this.

I'm glad that uh Councilman Holsaur addressed it as well.

Um Director Groth, is it fair to say that we don't in Naperville consume any more coal than any of our neighbors?

Director Brian Groff Electric Utility Director.

I would say that excuse me.

Um that we receive the PJM mix on an hour by hour basis, which is about the 15% coal.

Uh that sounds about right.

Mostly nuclear, mostly gas.

That sounds about right.

So I I think the significance of what Mr.

Philar's uh testimony was you know, we can debate and we can ask a series of questions and we can say where does our money go?

Because that's really what we're talking about.

It's not the electrons that are coming into our house, it's certain people don't like where our money is going.

When you understand how the grid works, when you get your arms around that, the significance of that is you realize that whether or we're a part of IMEA or not, those coal plants will continue to sell that energy into the market.

So I think that's what Mr.

Philar in a very scientific way was trying to explain is is there's the finite physical and the and the financial.

So people need to understand that.

So when they hear that Naperville gets 80% of their power from goal, it's factually untrue.

It's literally untrue.

That slogan needs to stop.

It's misleading, it's meant to drive emotion, and and and I I just think it needs to stop.

It's a fact.

We do not consume 80% coal.

We consume the same market energy that everyone else does.

Those coal plants that we have ownership interest in are financial hedges, period.

We leave I mean IMEA, there's still a financial hedge, and they still sell that energy into the market.

Now the next thing is the MDR that Mr.

Fredo um talked about.

I do have a problem with the fact that the public hasn't seen those those results.

I understand that the uh energy companies want them to be confidential, but you know, there's gotta be a way that we get this information out to people in some way.

We don't have to name the companies, but a big driver of this discussion was that renewal with IMEA was going to allow us to exercise a member directed resource that would allow us to increase our clean energy consumption, or same thing, send clean energy to the grid, right?

Just like the coal transaction, they're all paper financial transactions.

What we found out is prices on that clean energy, and I think people need to see that.

We also got a bid from an energy company that just offering us block energy, the same energy that we buy now.

That would be a really good proxy to find out this idea of going to market and what it would cost.

So I'm gonna be talking to staff.

We need to get that information out for print transparency.

It's a big deal, and and I think we need to have a discussion of how to do that uh without uh you know um.

I know the company said that they we couldn't name, so uh we don't have to talk about it tonight, but I I will be pushing for that.

Thank you, Councilman Wilson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um, just to I guess sort of uh add on to that point, a similar uh figure had been pushed around to show how much more coal costs than uh quote unquote clean energy, uh depending on what source you're talking about, and uh that and we can go back to when the presentation was here from NEST to council, where I specifically pointed out that their citations they were referring to was pointing to new coal being built, which we're obviously not using.

Um the correct figure to uh of consuming that is 30 to 35 uh per per megawatt.

So um just again dispelling uh numbers that continuously get posted around that are not true.

Um as to the makeup of that PUAB board meeting, PUAB board.

Um I'm the liaison.

I've sat through these presentations where we've consistently talked about um IMEA um options, consultants who have come in and spoken to us.

Um and I mean quite frankly, most of the folks that make up that board, if not all, um have a incredible background in the energy market and understanding what the dynamics are there.

So um, I mean, to to be to be frank, it's it's uh somewhat surprising to hear your comments uh quasi discrediting the the PUAB board members.

Thank you.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

Happy New Year.

And uh I'm so excited to see our Napolevil residents engage committed civically and well educated about about the different agendas we have, and today's agenda is about data center.

Yes, and I see a lot of familiar faces from Naperville residents, and thank you so much for coming out and being part of this engagement, being part of the decision, sharing your thoughts, sharing your consensus, issues, and other things, you know.

So we are here to listen to all the community members and everybody.

So thank you once again.

I see it's a full house today, and we are looking forward to engaging with everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman White.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just a question for our uh public works.

Um I was just at an event over MLK Day, and we and there was some discussion about uh some of the students who are catching the buses and so on, some uh may even have some disabilities.

Um, with the weather being like it is right now, um how are we doing as far as ensuring that um those particular corners where the buses have to pull up to uh are accommodating for the for the kids to get onto the buses without being injured.

Director Randolph, this is your first real question.

So are are you speaking of corners that the city owns or coordinates that the city owns?

Yes.

Okay, so if it's so if it's a if it's a residential neighborhood, uh typically we do not maintain those those sidewalks in a downtown area, you know, we have certain maintenance obligations.

Um but so typically it's up to the resident who's adjacent to that sidewalk to to make sure that it's that the snow is removed, and then we do our best to not uh intentionally place snow at corners.

So we instruct all of our contractors who are servicing the called sacks, you know, where to put the snow.

Um does that answer your question.

Yeah, yeah, mostly, and I guess it would also apply to anyone taking public transportation uh on the major roads, uh get what you understand what you're saying about the uh small neighborhoods.

But um, I do recall residents, and I really haven't heard a lot of it this year, but uh I did hear it a little bit, like I said, but with the um at those major roads, ensuring that uh if someone has a wheelchair or something along those lines, they can access the public transportation uh without having to go through ice and all that other stuff.

So on have you had had any feedback on on that particular issue at all?

No, I have not.

All right, thank you, ma'am.

All right, so towards the end of the year and after the beginning of the year, council as well as as my office received a lot of inquiries from residents who were having difficulties with the new utility billing system.

The city upgraded to a new utility system due to a vendor issue.

And some enrollments went very smooth, some not so smooth, and I would like to ask Director Munch to address an update as to where we are and where we are going with the conversion.

Director Munch.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh appreciate the opportunity to give the community a quick introduction to our new utility billing e-bill portal.

Uh, this portal it's now live.

Uh frankly it was designed with our customers in mind.

We took a lot of feedback that we heard on the old portal, which had been in place for well over a decade, uh, and it had some challenges that that our customers um you know were looking for us to work past.

Uh and I think we we accomplished much of that.

Um, customers' utility account numbers remain the same, their billing cycle remains the same.

Uh so that eased the transition to some extent.

Uh, this new portal uh allows customers to manage their utility accounts in one secure place.

Um they can view their accounts online, make online payments, they can view their billing history, and they can also set up recurring automatic payments.

The portal incorporates the features that customers have asked for the most.

Um, it's important to note that this is an entirely new system.

So users of our last eBill system do need to re-enroll, create an entirely new account with a new username and password in this portal.

One of the the complaints that we heard most often in our old portal were issues with passwords, password expirations, and password resets.

Uh, we believe this new portal moves past most of those.

It gives us uh full autonomy to control their login credentials, reset passwords, you don't have to call the city to get your account unlocked anymore.

So that should be nice for most of our customers.

Uh, in terms of payment options, a lot of flexibility here.

You can log in, make one-time payments.

Um, it it's relatively easy to do.

Uh can be set up quite easily.

And again, that can be done with a stored credit card or bank account.

This is maybe the most important slide I want to touch on because I think this is where most of our customers have seen challenges over the past couple weeks.

So there was kind of a nuance in the timing of when you enrolled in the new system against when your current utility bill was posted.

So if you enrolled in the system and set up automatic payments after your utility bill had been posted, your auto pay will start with your next utility bill.

So if you have a bill hanging out there, it does require you to go in and make a manual payment against that pre-existing bill.

Users get a visual confirmation.

You see this yellow dialog box on the screen here.

That is your visual confirmation that you have an automatic payment scheduled, the amount, the date it will transact.

And so if you see that, your next payment will happen automatically.

If you don't see that, I would encourage you to log into your account and make a manual payment of your existing utility bill.

Some other things that customers will see that I think they'll appreciate.

Customers will now be able to view 13 months of bills in the system.

Previously, that was six.

That was important for a lot of customers and businesses who want to see a full year of billing history, particularly at the end of the year.

All customers now see our updated digital digital bill format, uh, which was rolled out to our mail bill customers back in 2024.

Additionally, a PDF copy of your bill is now included and attached to your email notification that you receive when you have a new utility bill.

Um, that PDF also includes a copy of the Naperville Connected Newsletter.

So those bills will be delivered to your email each month, and you'll see them in your email without actually logging in.

In closing, um, we understand there's been some challenges.

We encourage customers that are having any difficulties to reach out to the finance department customer service team, and we'll help you work through that.

Uh, but generally speaking, uh, most customers have had a good experience thus far.

I looked at the the statistics today.

Uh we have re-enrolled over 28,000 e-bill customers.

That's about 81% of the existing users and the old system, and that's in our first month.

So uh good uptake on the new portal.

Again, understand there's some challenges and some nuances with the timing of enrollment.

We're working through those.

Um, and those challenges have been slightly different for different customers.

So if people are looking for communication, that communication has by and large been direct communication to customers that have been impacted through email.

Uh so keep an eye on your email.

Um, and again, if you have any questions or challenges that you're experiencing, feel free to reach out to our team and we'll help you through that.

Thanks, Director.

Any other public form speakers?

On item H.

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

Councilman White.

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

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Motion a second to approve the cons of the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White may have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Mayor, move to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second.

Mrs.

Schatz, please read the consent agenda.

There is one written comment on I 17 that was posted to the website.

Approval of the December cash disbursements for a total of 44 million, 245,616 and 87 cents.

Approval of the regular city council meeting minutes of December 16th, 2025.

Approval of the city council meeting schedule for February, March, and April 2026.

Receiving the year-to-date budget report through December 31st, 2025.

Approving an appointment to the historic preservation commission.

Adopting the resolution, removing a building review board member due to not meeting attendance requirements per section 2-1-4 of the municipal code.

Approval of the award of the single source procurement for chassis replacement and bucket truck body remount to all tech industries for 122,808.

Approval of the order of the cooperative procurement for uniform and hazard protective clothing rental program to Cyntas Corporation for an amount not to exceed 257,670 for a two-year term.

Approval of the award of the bid for Southeast Waterworks Generator replacement to Pro Temp of Illinois for an amount not to exceed 320,500 plus a 5% contingency.

Approval of the award of the bid for North Elevated Water Tank Rehabilitation Project to ERA Valdavia contractors for an amount not to exceed $999,077 plus a 3% contingency.

Approval of the award of option year number two to the contract for civil and ductwork to meet electric company for the amount not to exceed $400,000 or $400,713.

Approval of the award of option year number two to the contract for fuel site and storage tank inspections and repairs to Crown Industries for an amount not to exceed $225,000.

Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for South 40 Environmental Consultant Services to Gold Wave Incorporated for an amount not to exceed 151,180 and 31 cents for an additional 42 month term.

Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for downtown Washington Street Bridge Improvements Phase 3 Consultant Services to Civil Tech Engineering for an amount not to exceed 247,430 dollars approval of the intergovernmental agreements for sharing public safety radio talk groups between the city of Naperville and Will County and the Western Will County Communication Center approval of the 2026 special events calendar and designating the calendar as closed accepting the record of emergency procurement for Ogden Avenue and Washington Street Water Main Improvements Right of Way Rinterization to Builders Asphalt LLC for an amount not to exceed 450,000 dollars accepting the public underground improvements at Iron Gate Motor Condos Phase 2B and authorizing the city clerk to reduce the corresponding public improvement surety passing the ordinance approving a conditional use for an amusement establishment in the B2 zoning district and a zoning variance to reduce the amount of required Austri parking at 1911 Glacier Park Avenue Unit 103 passing the ordinance granting the requested entitlements to add a drive thru to the BP at 1532 North Aurora Road waiving the first reading and passing the ordinance amending amending section three-three-three and three-three-11 of the Naperville municipal code by adding a definition of artisanal tequila allowing the sale of artisanal tequila at class s one specialty food and liquor shop and lowering the cap on late night permits to 21 adopting the resolution authorizing the third amendment to the intergovernmental agreement between Naperville and Warrenville for wastewater utility services adopting the resolution of official intent for reimbursement of capital projects and adopting the resolution authorizing the city manager to execute the 2026 pace paratransit local share agreement for the operation of the ride to page programs we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda roll call quarterly yes Gibson aye Holzhour aye Jane I Kelly aye McBroom aye Sayed aye White I Wilson aye motion passes nine zero J1 item J1 is conducting the public hearing for the dormant special service area number thirty seven for Northwoods of Naperville and directing staff to prepare an ordinance establishing special service area number thirty seven public hearing for dormant special service area thirty seven is now open anyone who wishes to speak may come forward seeing no one coming forward councilman white may have a motion to close the public hearing mayor move to close public hearing council kelly second killy all those in favor saying aye aye opposed public hearing is now closed this item will return to the next city council meeting in February Councilman White I don't attend a motion to move agenda items M1 through M6 next mayor move to advance agenda items M1 through M6 ahead of agenda item L1 Councilman Kelly second Kelly all those in favor sign aye aye opposed motion carries we'll now proceed councilman white m1 mayor move to approve the award of bid 25-196 South operation center generator replacement to Omega Electric DBA temperature service company incorporated for an amount not to exceed $1 million plus a three percent contingency council killing second killing motion and second on m one roll call Gibson aye whole tower aye Jane I Kelly I McBroom I Sayed I White I Wilson quarterly yes Councilman White M two mayor move to approve the award of bid 25-244 Northwest waterworks improvements phase three to Damichanical Industries Incorporated for an amount not to exceed two million forty seven thousand five hundred and ninety seven dollars plus a three percent contingency and for a 14 month term council killing second killing we have a motion and a second on M2 roll call whole tower aye Jane I Kelly I McBroom I say in I White I Wilson I quarterly yes Gibson aye motion passes nine zero councilman white m three I move to approve the award of bid 25-254 2026 say brook phase three water main improvements tomorrow sewer construction for an amount not to exceed three million six hundred and seventy eight thousand nine hundred and twenty four dollars and twenty five cent plus a three percent contingency for and for a seventeen month term council killing second killing we have a motion and the second on m three roll call Jane yes Kelly McBroom aye white aye Wilson aye quarterly yes Gibson aye whole source aye motion passes nine zero councilman white m4 mayor move to approve the award of bid 25-255 Ogden Avenue phase two water main improvements to try and construction corporation for an amount

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and the second on M3.

Roll call.

Jane.

Yes.

Kelly.

McBroom.

I say in.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

All right.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holz Hour.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Councilman White M4.

Mayor move to approve the award of bid 25-255.

Ogden Avenue phase two water main improvements to try and construction corporation for an amount not to exceed $4 million, 300 plus a 3% contingency.

Council McKelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M4.

Roll call.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

I say in I White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White, M five.

I move to approve the award of RFP 25-191 Electric GIS utility network implementation and migration to Ram Tech Software Solutions Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $2,469,059.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M5 roll call.

McBroom.

Aye.

Cyan.

I White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holtz hour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Motion passes nine zero.

Councilman White, M6.

Mayor move to approve the award of option year number three to contract 23-046 fuel delivery motor fuel and tank wagon to Luke Oil Company Incorporated and Al Warren Oil Company Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $1,300,000 and for a one-year term.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M6.

Roll call.

Cyan.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Warley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holz Hour.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

Aye.

Motion passes 90L1.

Item L1 is a recommendation to consider the request for approval of a conditional use for a data center.

Variances for parking and equipment, screening, wall height, and an owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for the property located at 1960 Lucent Lane, Keras Critical Data Center.

18 comments were posted to the website, three statements of support, 88 positions of opposition, and we have 47 speakers signed up to speak.

Okay.

Um before we get into the speakers, I and the um the petitioner.

I just want to remind everyone that the public forum rules that I read at the beginning of the meeting, those still apply throughout the proceedings here in the council chambers.

So I expect any comments to be respectful and in a courteous manner.

If if participation rules are violated, uh we'll be asking people to stop immediately.

And uh we don't want to have to recess the meeting.

We'd like to make sure everybody is heard.

It's so important for us to hear all the opinions in the room without any sort of disruption.

Uh again, reminder for people with signs the the signs cannot block the view of any other person in the audience.

So you you can keep your sign at uh below your your neck uh in such cases if you're sitting, but you can't block other people in the room.

And we're gonna start with the petitioner's presentation, which is allotted 10 minutes.

The timer over on the side dias.

The clerks will be maintaining a manual timer, so you will not see a 10-minute countdown timer because we bought a cheap clock, it only does three minutes at a time.

The uh the public comment section after the petitioner's 10 minutes, you will see the three-minute clock in effect, and that is to help you make sure you can get all of your message delivered within that three-minute countdown, and then after the uh uh the public portion of uh the comments, then we will go into the rebuttal from the petitioner, which is five minutes, and again, our clock doesn't do five minutes either.

At which time uh whether the rebuttal's over, then we will engage the council in all their questions and and we do encourage you to stay.

So if there's questions that council members have from either public commenters or the uh the petitioner, for sure, we can get those questions answered.

Councilor uh question thank you.

Uh thanks for uh thanks for having us this evening.

Uh project before you tonight has been a long journey.

Uh we submitted to the city in April or approximately nine months ago.

We spent 13 hours at Planning and Zoning Commission over the course of four hearings.

Public interest has been intense.

Social media has been particularly brutal, where the flood of information has made it challenging to separate fact from fear.

I've heard uh both residents and council members struggle to discern truth amid competing claims.

On a personal note, personal note, this is the first case in 15 years where I've can had concern about safety due to communication from project opponents.

Thank the uh Naperville Police Department for being with us throughout uh the planning zoning hearing process.

Uh through this turbulence, we've continued to work to refine the project based on specific consider uh site specific considerations.

The project before you this evening is representative of how data centers can responsibly be built and operated.

Uh, as we begin the next stage of conversations with city council this evening, we commit to continue working with the community to find this pro fine-tune this project specifically for Naperville.

Uh, tonight I want to highlight a few key changes to the project and in particular changes associated with the OEA that was only published in the last four business days.

We started with two buildings, 72 megawatt IT load.

Through the PZC hearing process, we reduced scale to a single 36 megawatt IT load building and introduced a stewardship pledge, which included broad ranging commitments and did intended to address what we perceived as a legitimate resident resident concerns.

In reducing scale by 50%, we increased setbacks to the nearest Napor Commons resident to approximately 1,000 feet, yet maintain logical transitions to the plan, such as a nine-foot berm along Weatherby Lane and voluntary landscape buffering.

Context is critically important.

Homes in Naper Commons were built and sold in the shadow of a sprawling Nokia campus.

At the time, uh proper at the time the property before you this evening was improved with a long vacant five story, 600,000 square foot office buildings supported by two multi-story parking garages.

While those improvements have since been demolished, uh that was the unique urban framework within Napor Commons within which Napor Commons was proposed and approved by this council.

As the attorney for the developer of Naper Commons, proximity to Nokia was a primary component of how we develop Naper Commons.

Buyers in Naper Commons all signed disclosures, acknowledging the unique urban framework and potential impacts associated with the adjacent ORI zoning.

Today, the Nokia campus is a five-story, 1.1 million square foot advanced research and development facility.

Let's not forget this is an active campus.

In fact, Nokia is one of the city's largest employers with approximately a thousand employees on site.

Serving that Nokia campus is cooling equipment that is located 160 feet from Naper Commons and generators that are 259 feet from Naper Commons.

To be clear, this equipment or components of this equipment serve an existing data center within the larger Nokia research and development operation.

This equipment and the data center at Nokia all predate the development of Naper Commons.

It is incontrovertible that this operation in very close proximity to Naper Commons did not inhibit residential development at Naper Commons.

Much to the contrary, the homes in Naper Commons sold at prices above expectations within this context.

This historical context weighs significantly in favor of the proposal before you this evening.

As I noted previously, it's been four business days since the OAA was published.

I've not had opportunity to meet with any of you to discuss the substantial changes to the project as a result of the OAA.

The most substantial change in the OAA is a second reduction in the scale of the proposed facility.

As a result of the OAA limitations, the project before you is no longer a phase 1A, phase 1B, 36 megawatt IT load project that was before the plan commission.

Well, the plan commission voted 8 to 1 in support of the 36 megawatt IT proposal with very direct and specific statements about the project meeting standards for the conditional use.

The documentation before you this evening is much more restrictive.

It permits only 24 megawatt IT load to be constructed.

This represents another 33% reduction in scale.

That's a 33% reduction in scale after the city's planning staff found that the project met standards for conditional use.

It's a 33% reduction in scale after the city's planning and zoning commission overwhelmingly found that we met the standards for a conditional use.

To be clear, with this new reduction in scale, there is a corresponding reduction in the square footage of the building and the equipment necessary to operate the data center, including both generators and cooling equipment.

This underscores our commitment to working with the community.

Tonight we asked the same of the council.

Work with us to refine the project to fit the community.

Considering the historical context of homes in Naper Commons, selling despite proximity to the NAP to the Nokia data center and associated infrastructure that is four to five times closer than what we propose here this evening.

It would be disingenuous to suggest that there is nothing that could be done to make this project fit the community.

The CARES data center is consistent with both the underlying zoning and 60 years of Nokia campus being a center of innovation, investment, and jobs in the city of Naperville.

To exemplify my point, the 36 megawatt IT plan approved by C PCC.

Umators, those generators have been widely discussed and are primary source of fear underlying opposition from residents in Naper Commons.

At 24 megawatt IT load, only 12 generators are required to provide backup power to the facility.

This obviously represents a significant change in expectations.

It also fundamentally changes any calculation of the impacts associated with the proposed development, which is the foundation of this council's consideration this evening.

The same concept holds true with respect to cooling equipment.

While 24 rooftop HVAC units were programmed for purpose of the noise impact assessment, we are at 16 HVAC units as a result of changes dictated by the OAA.

That is 16 HVAC units approximately a thousand feet from Naper Commons, while existing conditions at Nokia include eight HVAC units at 160 feet.

It would be arbitrary for this council to make a decision this evening without further investigation of the impacts associated with this change.

Our development team is full of Naperville residents.

I live and work in Naperville.

Greg lives and uh works in Naperville or adjacent to Naperville.

Many of you know us personally.

At PZC, we presented testimony on permitting metrics associated with the operation of our diesel generators under the Clean Air Act.

Our expert uh testified that no Federal Air Act was uh Clean Air Act was permitted, was required.

Uh he explained that Illinois Environmental Protection Agency will ultimately issue a minor source permit.

However, that um given the the minor amount of emissions that uh that no modeling of emissions would be uh required.

Coming out of PCC, uh Greg and I made a determination that we wanted to take that step irregardless.

While the report has not issued, we've engaged environmental issues, environmental engineers to perform air dispersion modeling associated with the operation of the generator units.

One of the reasons it isn't available today is the change that's occurred in just the last couple days with the modification from 36 megawatts to 24 megawatts IT load.

Um we're doing this work at thousand at tens of thousands of dollars of cost, again, not because it's required, but because we've made every effort to address uh this case in a comprehensive manner.

Our goal is to rise rise above feeder politics and the extraordinary conjecture in social media to present the city council with scientific evidence.

It is indisputable that data centers are core to our modern economy.

The Pritzaker administration has made data center development a core element of its economic policy.

The Trump administration has done the same.

If Trump and Pritsker are aligned on the importance of data centers, I think the Naperville City Council should take notice.

My ask of you tonight is not a final decision on this project.

My ask of you this evening is to continue the conversation to provide feedback on the current state of plans to continue the case to February to allow us the opportunity uh to continue down the path we've been on for the last nine months, right sizing the project and helping the community understand why this is an important investment for the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now we'll go into the public speakers.

Or are we have a last petitioner question, Mayor?

Or is that after?

We're gonna do it after shots.

Call the first speaker and then go ahead and call the groups, and as a reminder, as the groups are called, we want the groups to come to that front row here in the ropes so uh we can make sure that we're processing the uh public speakers as efficiently as we possibly can.

The first four speakers are Rich Janner, Teresa Belmonte, Asim Bavar, and Priya Vincent.

Mr.

Janner.

Good evening.

My name is Rich Janner, Naple resident and business owner.

During your December meeting, as you may recall, I reported on the momentum within the data center opposition movement.

Today I can provide an update that opposition is more widespread, more bipartisan, and stronger than ever before.

Over 5,400 verified signatures are now on an opposition petition, a 29% jump in just one month's time.

A sincere thank you to Mayor Worley and all council members for engaging with residents on this issue.

There have been countless meetings at City Hall and resident homes and in your offices.

According to one council member, you have received a quote, unprecedented amount of opposition correspondence.

Given this and hours of testimony and presentations during the planning and zoning commission hearings already on the record, residents would like to see a no vote on this, and we'd like to see closure tonight.

Kicking the can to next month doesn't seem to be in anyone's best interest.

Out of respect for your time, some speakers will yield their three minutes and voluntarily forgo the opportunity to speak tonight.

In lieu of hours and hours of opposition public comment, residents opposed to the data center will stand now for a brief moment.

Thank you.

We know there has been legal maneuvering at the 11th hour, presumably to sow doubt on a potential no vote here tonight.

Lawsuits against this body are lawsuits against all of us, and I can assure you that if any entity threatens legal action, residents in this room will have your back.

Mr.

Mayor and City Council, you have clearly done your research and due diligence.

This is undisputed.

You've act responsibly and have not act recklessly in any way.

We would urge you to do what's right here and govern from a position of strength and not a position of fear.

Elected officials have vast authority to make decisions deemed in the best interest of the city overall.

As was brought out during planning and zoning hearings and acknowledged by PCC commissioners in their comments, your authority as an elected official far exceeds any appointee or staff member.

If you choose to base your decision on the so-called four conditions, then the burden of proof rests with the petitioner to prove all four conditions are met.

We hope you'll ultimately decide tonight that the four-way test has not been met and will not be met.

Our resident attorney Edwin Cruz has met with a prominent law firm specializing in this specific area of Illinois zoning law.

This meeting validated our original determination that all four conditions are absolutely relevant and should lead to a clear path for denial.

In conclusion, you're here you'll hear today loud and clear over and over that your constituents do not want a data center in this location.

Let's close the book on the data center and let's close it tonight.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Teresa Belmonte, followed by Asim Babar.

Good evening, Teresa Belmonte, Naperville resident.

Like my fellow residents and neighbors, I urge you to vote no on this proposal this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Asim Babar Priya Vincent, Lori Melhart, and Jamie Wint.

Good evening, Mayor Worley and members of the council.

My name is Asim Bobber.

I'm a board certified physician in both cardiology and internal medicine and a member of the teaching faculty at a local VA hospital.

I did not actually want to have to speak again, and I'm sure many of you may be sick of hearing me as well, but I felt it was necessary to respond to the petitioner's suggestion of conducting dispersion modeling for the proposed data center.

First of all, they had many months, nine months, I believe he said, to conduct such such a study and raising it immediately prior to potential council vote functions as a request for delay rather than as a meaningful safeguard.

Second, dispersion modeling does not establish safety.

Rather, it only evaluates regulatory compliance by agencies that admittedly no longer value human outcomes.

These models assume ideal conditions, including weather, fully functioning controls, and controlled runtimes.

It does not capture real-world factors such as generator testing, startup emissions, equipment aging, extended outages, and most critically the effects of repeated near-field exposure on residents living near immediately next door.

As has already been discussed ad nauseum, diesel generators represent significant risks when placed near residences as diesel exhaust at any amount is classified as carcinogenic to humans by the World Health Organization.

The peer-reviewed scientific evidence is unequivocal.

A landmark study of nearly 19 million U.S.

Medicare recipients published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter is associated with significantly increased mortality from cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and lung cancer, even at concentrations below current regulatory standards.

Meta analyses further demonstrate that each incremental increase in PM 2.5 particles is linked to a higher overall cancer risk.

In addition, controlled human exposure studies show that diesel exhaust causes acute airway inflammation and cardiovascular stress following short-term exposures.

Together, this body of evidence makes clear that dispersion modeling does not negate the fundamental reality that emissions when experienced repeatedly and at close proximity pose meaningful long-term health risks.

You may hear that the generators are advanced, runtimes are limited, and the model will be conservative.

But health risk is driven by proximity and repetition, not annual averages.

And just remember that at half the difference from ID8, the potential air pollution exposure to the nearest homes is squared, not doubled.

24 generators positioned next to homes create chronic near field exposure, exactly where dispersion modeling is least reliable and public health evidence is most concerning.

This is why any potential suggestion to delay a decision until modeling is available is not a neutral request for information.

It is a request to postpone a land use decision based on a tool that cannot resolve the fundamental question before you.

Is it appropriate to place heavy diesel infrastructure immediately adjacent to homes?

The scientific facts, the zoning considerations, and the public health risks we have already articulated are clear.

Waiting for an unreliable modeling does not reduce risk, it simply delays accountability.

Thank you once again.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Priya Vincent.

Members of the council, my name is Priya Vincent.

I'm a resident of Naperville.

I'm here tonight because of the proposed CARES data center raises serious concerns about public health and long-term well-being of our community.

Concerns that affect me personally.

And you know why this issue is why this issue matters so deeply to me.

I want to focus on condition use one.

The Illinois Constitution makes your responsibility in this matter clear.

Article 11, Section 1 states it is the duty of every person at every level of government to provide and maintain a healthful environment for the benefit of this and future generations.

Article 11, Section 2 affirms that each person has the right to a healthful environment and the power to enforce that right when it is threatened.

These are not symbolic statements, they are binding standards.

When a project poses a risk to public health, the city has a constitutional duty to evaluate those risks with the utmost care and to act in the interest of protecting the community.

Your home rule authority is a tool to enhance the lives of Naperville residents, not a loophole to bypass environmental protection guaranteed to us by the state constitution.

Residents have raised serious and evidence-based concerns about the health impact of the data center.

These concerns are lived realities for the people in this community.

We deserve more than an acknowledgement.

We acquire ground, we require action grounded in your constitutional duty to protect the healthful environment of current and future generations.

Naproville's legacy of careful planning, true community stewardship, deserves to be honored.

Rejecting this proposal will protect the people who call the city home.

For decades, the Naperville has earned its reputation for responsible leadership and as a desirable place to live.

Tonight is an opportunity to show that this commitment still matters.

Thank you for your time and your dedication to the people of Naperville.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Lori Melhart, followed by Jamie Wint and Steve Jarvis.

Hello, my name is Lori Melhart.

I am a resident of Donato Woods, and I'm an active local voter in Naperville.

I know we have a fair number of union representatives here today, and I want to just say that we are with you.

We are not against development at this location, but this particular development at this particular location poses significant risks to neighboring residents and is not aligned with the city's master plan that calls for medium density residential here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Jamie Windt.

Hi, my name is Jamie Windt.

I uh live in Naper Commons as well, and I'm gonna make it short and sweet.

I just ask you to oppose this, and I ask you to please do it tonight so we can just move forward with our lives.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Steve Jarvis, followed by Heba Suleiman, Whitney Glowackey, and Sue J.

Shaw.

Good evening.

My name is Steve Jarvis.

I'm a Naperville resident living near the proposed data center site.

I've already shared my opinion and objection of this topic by mail and email.

And tonight I respectfully ask that you vote no on Curris' proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Hebo Suleiman.

Good evening.

My name is Hebba Saliman.

I am a resident of Neighbor Commons, and I would ask that you vote no against approving this data center.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Whitney Glowackey, Sue J.

Shaw, Amanda Laughlin, and Edwin Cruz.

As a reminder, if you as you hear your name mentioned, please move to the front row.

Go ahead.

All right.

First, I would like to define sustainability.

It is the ability to maintain a certain rate and standard of living.

We stay sustainable by preventing the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance.

The Neighborville data center is the exact opposite of sustainability.

A neighborville data center will damage the damage, will outlast our lifetimes.

And it's embarrassing that we're even having this conversation in the first place.

My name is Whitney Galoacki, and I learned to drive in downtown Naperville over 20 years ago, and I plan to die in my neighborville home.

I will fight like the Lorax to prevent WALL-E from coming true.

A data center will make WALL E happen faster.

Communities with data centers only prove that our concerns are valid.

Look what businesses the Naperville is invested in.

Tesla, Amazon, and now AI.

Those are the fingerprints of the 1% stealing our community.

The Neighborville data center is the last straw.

We do not want a data center anywhere in Naporville or even Illinois.

Not near our homes, not near our trees, and not near our water.

The residents will not forget this at voting time.

Naperville needs to focus on building the infrastructure that will be sustainable in the future so the city is ready when the coal contract is finished.

Neighborville should not be investing in a data center.

I have not heard one positive fact about building a data center anywhere.

And if Nader Naperville has a data center associated with its name, that is a slap in the face to every resident that believed our community was rising above and being a leader for the future.

The data center is a stab in the back for every human not included in the 1%.

The fact that the city of Naperville is even entertaining this idea is embarrassing.

And if the Neighborville dental Naperville data center succeeds, Naporville must relinquish any and every claim at being sustainable.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Sue J.

Shaw, followed by Amanda Laughlin, Edwin Cruz, and Barbara Benton.

Dear members of the City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak.

A conditional use is an exception.

It is not an entitlement.

And when that exception involves a permanent facility with permanent exposures for surrounding residents, the bar must be very high.

If that bar is lowered, the condition loses meaning.

Condition one requires that the use not be detrimental to or endanger public health, safety, or general welfare.

That determination requires an honest benefit risk assessment, and that's where the data matters.

We have presented four layers of supportive data.

First, diesel exhaust is a known carcinogen.

That is not debatable.

Second, risk increases when diesel exhaust comes from stationary, concentrated sources.

Exactly what is proposed here.

This is not the same as diesel exhaust from an Amazon truck or fast moving traffic on a highway half a mile away.

And that is why historically heavy industry is separated and placed away from residential neighborhoods.

The petitioner's last second revised plan to reduce the diesel generators to still a significant number of 12 actually proves this point as a significant risk.

Third, tier 4 emission controls do not eliminate health risk.

PM 2.5 is still released in ultrafine particles, which are unregulated under tier 4 remain a big concern.

These particles are strongly linked to respiratory disease and increase cancer risk.

Fourth, while data centers of this scale are relatively new, early warning signs already exist.

We have previously presented data projecting a substantial number of asthma cases linked to diesel generator permitting for data centers in Virginia.

We do not ignore early warning signs.

We act on them.

Let me put this in everyday terms.

In hospitals, radiation sources are shielded and kept away from public areas.

Why?

Because proximity substantially increases risk.

Likewise, we don't allow for smoking near schools or playgrounds.

Why?

Because proximity substantially increases risk.

At gas stations, we are required to turn off our engines when we fill up.

Why?

Because proximity substantially increases risk.

Protecting families means creating distance from risk, not trying to learn to live beside it.

This comes down to unavoidable truths.

Exposure to carcinogens causes material adverse health impacts, and proximity amplifies these risks.

The data and logic here are clear.

Condition one is not met, and this proposal should be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Amanda Laughlin.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Amanda Laughlin, and my family has been in Naperville for just over five decades.

I spent the back half of my childhood here and went to North Central College, and I've now started my only my own family here in Naperville.

We chose to put down roots here, probably for the same reason that many of you have.

Putting an industrial facility within walking distance of homes and playgrounds damages Naperville's reputation as a family-friendly city.

Mayor Worley told myself and a number of other residents that the council will be making a decision tonight based upon all four standards of conditional use in the Naperville Municipal Code.

The second condition, 2.2, addresses use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate area and the impairment of property values within the neighborhood.

And in my experience, I've seen firsthand how increased supply and uh and uh lower demand has impacted home values in a very significant way.

One of our close friends in the neighborhood sold their home immediately after the PCC decision.

Another is for sale currently, and many are preparing their homes right now based on this decision tonight.

Did CARIS provide any factual data from comparable markets that shows property values will have no significant downfall?

No.

They have not met and will not meet the burden of proof related to the second condition.

So now residents are in a precarious position.

Do we sell our home at a loss, or do we expose our families and children to a public health risk?

Neighbor Commons property values have risen so rapidly due to the high demand for the area and the low supply.

But if suddenly there's a shift of a higher supply due to resident selling and a low demand due to a new toxic industrial neighbor, naturally property values will be damaged.

As Rich said in his opening, we do sincerely appreciate the time and effort that you've spent to deliberate this decision.

We trust that you understand the importance of this decision tonight.

Given our reputation, other communities are absolutely watching what happens and paying attention to Neighborville, so your decision can have a significant and irreversible ripple effect across the Chicagoland area and likely statewide.

The petitioner has not provided any evidence that the four conditions have been met, and they're trying to strong arm you to ignore your own code because they know it does not meet the requirements.

Please stand with my family, your constituents, and know that residents do not want a data center here, and we never will.

Decisions like this will impact the legacy of our city and your personal legacy as representatives and city leaders.

Please do what you know is right and vote no tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, new speaker.

The next speakers are Edwin Cruz, followed by Barbara Benton, Daniel Johnson, and Jen Vanowet.

It's been suggested that relying on the master plan to deny this proposal would be unlawful because your decision would be reviewed by courts as a legislative decision, where the question would be whether it was arbitrary or unreasonable.

We don't dispute that standard of review.

What we dispute is the idea that legislative review allows this council to ignore mandatory conditions under the city code.

The code is explicit.

A conditional use can only be approved if all four conditions are met, including no conflict with the master plan.

Legislative review does not erase this requirement.

From a risk perspective, approving a conditional use without a defensible finding on a required condition exposes the city to challenge.

Whereas a decision, whether a denial or an approval that follows the code and is supported by the record is on much more solid legal footing.

Litigation Council has independently reviewed this analysis and confirmed that it reflects settled Illinois zoning law.

Now, having laid out the legal framework, let's turn to requirement one, which is on your screen.

Now, council should be reasonable here.

This requirement number one shouldn't disqualify uses projects for trivial impacts that come with every land use.

But it is designed to prevent real and reasonably foreseeable harms.

Even after petitioners proposed mitigations, this facility would still produce carcinogenic diesel exhaust, at least during testing and outages, and continuous low frequency noise, all within very close proximity to homes, plus unprecedented, uh unprecedented strain on the electrical grid.

These are critical detriments and dangers to public health safety and welfare, and they result in a failure to meet this first requirement.

And notice how there's no qualifier here.

Lawmakers could have written this requirement to say not significantly detrimental to or not seriously in danger, but they didn't.

And that wasn't accidental.

That reflects an intent to err on the side of caution and an understanding that conditional uses are exceptions, uses that don't automatically belong in a district and therefore require a higher level of protection for the public.

And so the question before you on this first requirement isn't whether petitioner has mitigated impact or reduce the amount of generators by 12.

The question is whether petitioner has eliminated all of the material detriments and dangers to public health safety and general welfare.

The record here shows that even after mitigation, real risks will remain.

And so, under the standard that lawmakers intentionally crafted, requirement one is not satisfied.

Because these four criteria are mandatory and remain unmet, the ordinance doesn't leave us up to discretion.

It imposes an obligation on your part, and that obligation is denial.

The speaker's time is up.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Barbara Benson, Daniel Johnson, Jen Banowitz, and Karen Budd.

If you've heard your name called, please move to the front row.

Good evening.

I'm Barbara Benson, the chair of the Building and Development Committee, and on the leadership team of NEST, giving tonight's comments on the CARAS Data Center proposal.

Since the fall, NEST has recommended to the Planning and Zoning Commission to take a pause on approving the CARIS data center.

This position is rooted in a critical reality.

Naperville's current codes are outdated and fail to account for the unique complexity of data centers.

Furthermore, the proposed location is fundamentally inconsistent with the city's long-term vision as outlined in the 2022 Naperville Land Use Master Plan and does not meet the conditional use standards as outlined in Section 638 of the municipal code.

Recent reports highlight a troubling national trend.

Data centers often strain local energy supplies and leave taxpayers to shoulder the resulting infrastructure costs, as well as complaints about noise pollution.

This is not a theoretical concern.

Regionally, the city of Aurora recently issued a moratorium on such developments to address mounting municipal issues.

Even Elkro Village, which previously prioritized data center growth, has faced significant public backlash regarding noise pollution and excessive energy and water demands.

While the community stewardish stewardship by the petitioner tries to superficially address concerns, the city needs to codify regulations in order to make informed decisions regarding this proposal or any future data center.

NEST recommends that the city institute a moratorium on these developments.

This pause would allow staff to modernize zoning codes and ordinances, ensuring that development progresses without harming residents, the environment, or the city's energy grid.

Specifically, NEST urges the council to request that staff prioritize the following codify reporting and enforcement, establish mandatory transparent reporting of water and energy usage.

Establish mandatory transparent reporting of water and energy usage.

These regulations must include clear enforcement mechanisms to penalize noncompliance.

Regulate backup power testing.

Mandate strict schedules for generator and backup power testing to mitigate noise pollution and diesel emissions in adjacent residential areas.

Implement differentiated zoning.

Data centers are not monolithic.

The city must establish distinct zoning categories based on scale and cooling methods.

Small scroll scale server farms are different than hyperscale facilities.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Daniel Johnson, followed by Jen Banowitz, Karen Butt, and Nadim Mirza.

Thank you.

My name is Dan Johnson.

I'm a lifelong Naperville resident.

As you can see on the screen, recent conditional use requests that have come before City Council unequivocally and invariably state their compliance with the master plan as required by condition four.

These statements are included in their required response to standards document.

Even though the response to standards, which includes condition four, is required for every conditional use permit.

It's been suggested that any reliance on the land use plan would be arbitrary and would subject the city to significant litigation risk.

Adopting this position would deviate from the process the council applied to all other conditional use permit applications.

Further, the plan provides relevant direction to those seeking to develop land, those living adjacent to vacant sites, and city leaders responsible for making development approval decisions.

The suggestion that any reliance on this is arbitrary is not convincing.

Now the suggestion that the rule doesn't apply conveniently serves the petitioner, since their response to standards concedes that the development does not adhere to the comprehensive master plan by instead suggesting that the development is consistent with the IEDA corridor strategy.

As you know, the comprehensive master plan is a defined term in the municipal code, whereas the IEDA corridor strategy is not.

Condition four requires a petitioner to prove no conflict exists between the proposed use and the master plan, not that the proposed use is generally consistent or reasonably aligned.

The proposed development objectively conflicts with the comprehensive master plan, which designates the subject property as medium density residential.

The rule itself requires the petitioner to prove that there is no conflict between between the plan and the proposed use, and it does not provide discretion for city council to waive the requirement.

Disregarding condition four entirely, as has been suggested, would be effectively rewriting the code and operating outside the bounds of the city's ordinance.

Condition four is not a light switch that can be turned on and off at the petitioner's request.

Condition four is straightforward and doesn't require legal gymnastics.

It simply requires a plain language application, which leads to the conclusion that the requirement is not met.

Without consideration of condition four, approval of this conditional use would lack the evidence in the finding that the law requires.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Jen Banowitz, followed by Karen Butt and Dean Merza.

Good evening, I'm Jen Banowitz.

I've lived in Naperville for 24 years.

I wanted to take a quick second and thank all of you who've met with our neighbors, and I've learned more about data centers than I ever thought I would.

But I also have learned a lot about city government, and I really appreciate the time you have listened to your constituents.

It means a lot, and uh I'm also really proud of my neighbors who have really rallied around this cause.

Um, I am going to yield the rest of my time because I want this shut down tonight.

So uh on to the next speaker.

Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Karen Butt.

Hi, my name is Catherine Bye.

Why I want my neighborhood safe.

First of all, I don't want anyone to bring particles, they are not supposed to.

That means build it in a totally clear spot where there are no houses, and no one wants to always have a stinky smell in their house.

Next, it can really affect people's hearing.

All that depumming.

Last I bet almost everyone wants peace and calm, right?

One of my school rules is to be safe.

One of my school rules is to be safe.

Is building a data center safe?

Another one of the rules is to be respectful.

Is building a data center respectful?

I also think you can build it, but far, far away, at least 100 miles away.

Data centers and five senses.

Data centers and our five senses don't go together.

Data centers can affect almost all our five senses.

It can affect hearing and breathing.

Please keep us safe.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speakers are Nadim Mirza, James Bud, Clara Lambert, and Maxwell Watkins.

I'm Nadim Merza, I'm a Naperville resident.

Most of you have seen me before.

What I'm here to say that I haven't said before, because you already know my story is that reduction of scale is not is an acknowledgement of harm, right?

The petitioner has acknowledged that we have legitimate concerns and subsequently reduced the scale of their proposal.

Reducing harm does not eliminate it.

The acknowledgement of legitimate concerns only leads us to conclude that the data center proposal still does not mean condition one.

A detriment to public health.

And on that basis, tonight we vote.

The only logical conclusion is that the proposal fails to meet the conditions.

We have ignore stall tactics, delay tactics at the last minute, as we've had five months of deliberation.

I think we have all the facts we need to make the right decision.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is James Budd.

Hello, this is James Budd.

My daughter, she's a force.

She's listened to every single uh PCC meeting.

She has watched me practice, she's asked a lot of questions.

Those were her words.

They were not my words.

I did not do anything, uh, even edit her presentation.

Okay.

I I really don't have anything else to say other than please uh provide our community.

Uh you know, this has been terrorizing us since August since we found out about it.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Clara Lambert, Maxwell Watkins, Michael Thibodeau, and Jenna Wind.

Thank you.

My name is Claire Lambert.

Um, just briefly want to speak.

Um, last week, our neighborhood coalition put out a survey um to Naperville through social media.

We had um uh over 400 responses in just 72 hours.

Um, of those, only three 33 percent were in the zip code of our neighborhoods in Naperville, the rest were throughout the rest of Naperville, so that was really good.

Um, this was submitted for public comment, or as so you should be able to see it on your agenda.

But I think a couple of things is we feel it's gonna affect our enjoyment.

We feel it's going to affect our property values.

Um ninety-one point seven percent of respondents.

Would you have bought your home or would you buy a home if you knew a data center could be built next to your neighborhood?

They said no.

Um, do you what extent do you think a data center next to your home or neighborhood would make it harder to enjoy your property?

92.6% said it would be hard to enjoy their property.

So please listen to your constituents.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Maxwell Watkins.

Hi.

Uh as everyone here, I imagine uh would agree that we would like a conclusion to this tonight.

I'll keep this very short.

Uh, although government must always balance different needs and interests, the health and safety of residents must come first.

As such, it's the responsibility of any company who wants to build an industrial facility to show that said facility will not harm local communities.

And as Keras has failed to do so with either the noise pollution or the diesel emissions, I implore all of you to please vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speakers are Michael Thibodeau, Jenna Wind, Julian Zuko, and Linda Scotty.

Good evening.

My name is Michael Thibodeau.

Uh, you're not even gonna need to run that thing.

I'm gonna keep it real short.

I oppose this data center, and I implore you to please this evening vote no.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Jenna Wind.

The next speaker is Julian Zuko.

Hi, I'm Julian Zuko, and I have to admit I'm a bit dazed after the presentation from the petitioner's attorney.

Uh, not dazzled, but dazed by the moving target.

And there is nothing in that presentation that convinced me that they meet the criteria for conditional use.

Building the data center in that location would be a disaster for all the adjoining neighbors.

And on a much larger scale, it would be a disaster for Naperville.

Please vote no.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Linda Scotty, followed by Dan Allen, Karen Charvat, and Tom Kuklic.

Good evening, and thank you for your service as a retired federal employee myself.

I thank you.

And I've met most all of you.

I've spoken before.

I've bombarded you with emails.

My background is safety and health.

I work for the Secret Service for many years, and I did a lot of background on noise.

And I am very concerned about the low frequency vibrational noise that Aurora has been suffering with.

So I will yield the rest of my time.

I am very optimistic that we will have a vote tonight, and you'll do the right thing and vote no.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Dan Allen.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council.

My name is Dan Allen, and it's a my privilege to share the perspective of the construction industry service corporation, Cisco, with you and the community.

Cisco represents 140,000 union construction workers and 8,000 union contractors across six counties, including DuPage County.

Hundreds of these contractors, businesses are right here in DuPage, and thousands of these trade workers proudly live in DuPage, and a large percentage of whom are veterans.

We all stand together in full support of the proposed KARIS campus.

We build and operate and maintain these facilities.

Our journey workers receive over 1,200 hours in the classroom education, combined with over 8,000 on-the-job training hours.

And our first hand experience, these facilities are synonymous with safety, reliability, and efficiency.

To be clear, if everything circulating on the internet about this proposal were true, I would be concerned also.

However, the reality is many of these claims are exaggerated and unsupported by the facts.

After months of transparent debate, the depart the proposal has been carefully tailored and compromised to Naperville with specific conditions for the site.

The current campus uses a third of the power of the original plan, reduces the number of generators and cooling units, and the overall size of the campus.

And the facility, as was said, is over a thousand feet away from the nearest residence.

The campus will be powered with renewable energy, and KARIS is guaranteed in writing that both taxpayers and ratepayers will not pay a single dime.

Data centers are not a heavy-use industrial use.

In fact, they are a marvel of modern engineering.

Argonne Lab and DuPage proudly house Aurora, the second fastest supercomputer in all the world.

Thanks to advances in technology, a building a quarter size of the long-vacant former office site can now provide local families with careers, generate millions in local business spending, and provide millions in local tax revenue.

As you consider this matter, remember the men and women of the building trades and the contractors are your neighbors, and we value clean air, reliable electricity and vibrant communities.

Done right data centers are something special to be welcomed, and we believe the proposal sets this a standard for responsible development.

This proposed campus will transform electricity into intelligence, driving innovation and can unlock tremendous economic opportunities.

I urge you to say yes to innovation and investment, and yes to our young people currently attending DuPage Tech Center, COD, and other trade schools and other high schools that eagerly want to enter careers in the union construction industry and a path to the middle class, which this project will provide.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And before the next speaker, um, just a reminder for those with signs, you got to keep them under your chin.

We I assure you we can see them, but the people that you're blocking behind you are having a hard time seeing what's going on up here.

So, sir, you're blocking the person behind you with your signs.

So you got to keep the sign below your chin.

That's a respectful thing to do for everybody.

We want to make sure everybody can see what's going on up here, and we're respectful of that.

Okay.

All right, next speaker.

The next speaker are Karen Sharvat, followed by Tom Kuklich, Anthony Gunty, and Joel Orozco.

Good evening, Mayor Worley and Council.

My name is Karen Sharvat, and I've been in Naperville resident since 2014.

I'm also the executive director of Power Forward DuPage, where we represent the electrical industry's most highly skilled and trained workforce in DuPage County.

Over 350 electrical contractors and 1,500 union electricians through the IBEW Local 701.

Our goal is to help ensure electrical, energy, and communication projects are safely committed, completed on time and on budget.

And it is our tradesmen and women who work on data projects such as this day in and day out, from the ground up to the maintenance necessary for years after the initial construction is complete.

Outside and inside the data centers.

Today, data centers are no longer abstract, distant technologies.

They are the backbone of how we live, work, learn, and communicate.

They are present in every part of our daily lives, from assessing health information to ensuring financial transactions, travel, education, and communications remain uninterrupted.

This project will not only bring in millions of tax revenue for the city of Naperville, it will also bring in money into our local economy.

What does that look like?

The local labor force, made up of Naperville Western suburban residents, will cycle their dollars back into Naperville businesses, our amazing downtown shops, and our incredible restaurants, and at the fantastic new Block 59.

As the city will benefit, so will its economy, keeping our businesses healthy and strong.

And this bears repeating, this is not just a construction-only build the shell project.

This data center will require ongoing support of its infrastructure, in turn supporting long-term jobs for the local labor force.

The tradesmen and women I mentioned a few moments ago, and that I'm so very proud to represent each and every day.

In closing, on behalf of Power Forward DuPage and those Naperville residents whose livelihoods are supported by careers in the electrical and other skilled trades, we respectfully ask for your approval of CARES Critical's request for a conditional use to build and operate this data center.

For approving this project is much more than granting a data center data data center permit.

It is an investment in families, in economic resilience, and in Naperville's identity as a community that leads the way forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Tom Kuklic, Anthony Giunti, Joel Orozco, and John Brining.

Anthony Giunti.

Mayor, Council.

My name is Anthony Junti.

I've been a proud resident of Naperville for 28 years.

I currently serve as the Sixth District International Representative for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and I'm here tonight to express my strong support for the Keras Data Center project.

Thousands of Naperville families whose careers are in the trades are counting on the reinvestment and revitalization of the I-88 Tech Corridor.

Revitalizing the Lucent campus is not just another construction project, it's an opportunity to bring jobs, investment, and new opportunities to Naperville.

During construction, local contractors, union trades, and suppliers will see millions of dollars at work.

This is money that will be spent directly in our local economy.

Once the center is built, it will support long-term operations jobs, both directly from the center and indirectly from its tenants, many of which will be Naperville residents.

Contrary to what you've heard, these are not just temporary jobs.

These are careers that can provide for families and strengthen our community.

The developer in the city have gone above and beyond gone above and beyond the limit to impact the to limit the impacts on residents and the environment.

The 126-page rigorous ordinance requires the data center to operate as they've pledged or be shut down.

The fears over water use, noise, brownouts, and more are not based on the facts of this proposal.

Families will not be asked to pay a single dollar yet.

The economic and fiscal benefits will touch every corner of Naperville.

This council debated the impact of a 1% grocery tax and worried about its effects on the working class.

I can tell you by taking away the opportunity for stable work has a more profound impact than that tax ever will.

Shutting down economic development and turning Naperville's prime jobs corridor into a town town home alley hurts the middle class.

For families to afford to live in Naperville, we need jobs, the jobs corridor to provide jobs.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

I appreciate your time this evening.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Joel Orosco, John Brining, Joey Ruzovich, and Olivia Wallace.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Joel Orosco.

I'm with Smart Local 265, and I represent over 2,000 skilled tradesperson in the sheet metal industry.

Our organization is part of the DuPage County Trades.

I, like other representatives of the trades, am here tonight to urge the council to be deliberate and take your time.

Data centers have been in the news and all on all our social media a lot lately.

Men and women of the trades are here to tell you that the data centers aren't big, scary industrial operations.

Instead, they're a high skilled innovative source of long-term work.

We were proud to build the computing and computing infrastructure that makes our modern society function.

So let's reset the focus on what this project means for Naperville families.

Naperville and our region have long depended on the I 88 Tech Corridor to create opportunity.

Reinvesting in that corridor specifically by revitalizing the former Lucent campus with a total investment exceeding seven uh 750 million is how we keep skilled work here at home and ensure our kids see a future in the communities like Naperville, not somewhere else.

When data centers, when a data center opens, it provides the kind of stable positions to help families qualify for mortgages, say for college, and contribute to our tax base year after year.

There are a lot of opinions, but the record shows that developer and the city have gone above and beyond to limit the impact and hold operations to a measurable standard.

In the records is a 137-page ordinance that sets strict performance requirements.

If the operator doesn't meet them, the city has the authority to shut them down.

This is a real this is real accountability and not a handshake promise.

Some have proposed that the only path forward is turning the corridor into townhomes.

I'm not against housing.

Um but if Naperville wants to remain a place where working families can afford to stay, our jobs corridor must have campuses that create jobs.

Every elected official proclaims they want to address issues of affordability and help the middle class.

Here's the reality.

Taking away the opportunity for stable work has more harmful and long-lasting impact on working families than any other policy will.

Take your time on this important proposal, focus on the facts and not fear.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are John Brining, Joey Ruzovich, Olivia Wallace, and David Brock.

Good evening, Council members, and thank you for the time you spend dedicating to this understanding the proposal and hearing from the community.

My name is John Brining.

I believe in Naperville for five decades.

I've seen our city grow, reinvent itself, succeed when we pair opportunity with accountability.

Over the past several months, the community has expressed concerns about the noise, electricity use, infrastructure, long-term impacts that this process would have.

The questions are valid and they deserve serious answers.

I appreciate that this process worked.

The concerns that were raised did not get brushed aside.

They led to changes, clear standards, and stronger protections for people who work and live live here just like me.

The development agreement before you now contains firm requirements.

Or if if not followed, the city can shut the data center down, like the other speakers have said.

The development agreement before you now contains those kinds of requirements.

There are not these are not small adjustments.

They represent significant tightening of the original concept.

The draft agreement ref reflects the expectation long held in the community that major developments should not just happen to Naperville, but projects are done consistent with Naperville values, standards, and long-term vision.

We also heard tonight from the men and women who build, maintain, and operate these advanced facilities.

They bring experience in the field.

They represent thousands of local families who rely on businesses just like this for their careers.

The message was simple.

The data center is going to be, if it's going to be built, it must be built responsibly.

The agreement before you sets new stores, stored, steward for the get those controls.

I believe this proposal has been revised, meets the standards of our city, expects and strengthens the economic uh development along the Toll Way corridor.

It reinvests in a long underused research campus.

It does so in a way that positions Naperville to manage growth while protecting the health, safety, and quality of life of the nearby residents.

A lot of work is has been gone into this.

The city has listened, negotiated for improvement, and it shows.

I urge you to continue moving the process forward, not because every concern is disappeared, but because the framework you have shaped ensures that this project will be held to the highest level of transparency, accountability, and community benefit.

Thank you.

And vote yes.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Joey Ruzovich, followed by Olivia Wallace, David Bruck, and Cassim Rashid.

Hello, everybody.

My name is Joey Ruzovich.

I'm a software engineer.

I did machine learning research out of college for a subcontractor of the Department of Defense before I became a software or mobile app engineer for Silicon Valley.

I say that only to say that I do have a little bit of expertise in this field.

I am not a resident of Naperville, but I am a resident of Illinois, and this does affect me.

We've heard that uh the electricity prices are going to go up, not just because of this data center, but because of all of the data centers that are going up around Illinois.

Uh electricity prices have risen 16% year over year for the last four years.

I do not get a 16% raise every year in my job, and I guess the I would guess that the vast majority of people do not also get a raise of 60% to cover these costs.

Uh this is a real concern that we have to take into account when we're talking about putting a data center up anywhere in the state of Illinois.

Uh, you could mandate that the data center creates their own energy supply, but that would not be profitable for this company.

And so if the only way for a company to exist is to exploit the public, then I don't think that it's a good business proposal in the first place.

Second of all, we've talked about jobs and how this data center is going to bring about jobs.

It will bring about, and let me just say the only people that have spoken in favor of this proposal are the people who are going to make money on it, the general contractors, the unions, and all of that.

And I am not against development, but I am certainly against the only people in favor of it being the ones who profit from it.

These are short-term construction jobs, sheet metal jobs, union jobs, and they are not long-term skilled labor jobs.

At the most, this data center would have maybe 50 skilled people working in it at all times.

That is not worth the detriment of health and concerns and economic concerns to the residents of this area.

Finally, I would like to say that uh nobody has talked about what this data center is producing.

Does anybody want to guess?

It's a slop machine.

That is what it is, that is what it produces.

Um, the technology that is coming out of these data centers is not curing cancer.

It is creating new ways to squeeze dollars out of the middle class.

This is another advancement of that.

It is not going to be used for any type of artificial intelligence gains.

It is only going to be used to hurt the residents.

Um, I would implore you that this is not just a symbol of where we stand in Naperville, but where we stand across the state of Illinois.

Um, artificial intelligence, Chat GPT, all the rest, the chatbots, they've been detrimental to kids.

Uh they have uh atrophied our human abilities to communicate socially, and it has been nothing but a negative to our country.

And that is why you see this packed house today to come up and say that they are not for this data center because not just the construction, but the uh data center being there and on all of the uh detriments uh to health, and then the product that it produces is negative in and of itself.

So please do not let this temporary tax revenue uh and fake jobs reports allow you to go against the will of the residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Olivia Wallace, David Brock, Kasim Rashid, and Jack Ma.

If you heard your name call, please move to the front row.

Thank you.

Ms.

Wallace.

My name is Olivia Wallace, and I live in Naper Commons with my daughter, my son-in-law, and my toddler grandson, who has a rare lung disease.

I'm sorry that we've gotten to this point.

I care about my family, I care about my community, I care about our city.

I care about the future of citizens yet to live here.

Please vote no on any kind of data center near our homes and look back with peace at your decision and not regret.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is David Brock.

Hello, I'm David Brook.

I'm a resident of Naperville.

I'm I have a I'm the head of a household of a family of five here, and I respectfully ask the council to vote no on the data center proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Kasim Rasheed.

Good afternoon, uh Mayor, City Council, my name is Kostin Rashid.

I'm a resident of Naperville, I'm a human rights lawyer.

And as I was driving over here, I was thinking about my remarks, and I wanted to reflect on a couple things.

One, as a father of a child who has a severe asthmatic condition, and we've had to take them to the ER numerous times.

Had we not gotten there in time, it could have been fatal.

The evidence is extraordinarily clear on these data centers about the impact on public health, the harm to our quality of life, and the data nationwide is explicitly clear on this that this results in degradation of our air quality, of our water quality.

And I understand the arguments about the financial benefit or the temporary financial benefit.

But as I was driving over here, I began to think about the previous times I've spoken before this council, and I think I wanted to step back for a minute and ask what is the North Star of the Council.

Because you know, we just passed Dr.

Martin Luther King Day, and one of the profound pieces of wisdom that he pointed out is that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

And as we think about this, I think about is the goal of the city council to do what is economically best in the short term, or what is best for the humanity and dignity of the entire city and of all its residents.

I reflect on the city council that passed a bold gun safety uh piece of legislation that was upheld in the state supreme court and in the US Supreme Court.

We could have made money off of that.

It could have created jobs, we could have made that argument, but the city council made the right decision.

And I would ask you to make that same right decision once more, because that has to be the North Star.

If it's not this data center, some other business will come in and make a promise of financial benefit, asking you to ignore the human impact that it will have.

What is the line that we're going to draw then?

If a store opens up tomorrow saying that, hey, we're gonna sell shards of glass to children and it's gonna make you a ton of money and create jobs.

Are we going to then suddenly say, you know what, this is gonna make us a lot of tax revenue?

Let's go for it.

Of course not.

Well, the data shows that the impact this has on children's lungs on our lungs is just as detrimental.

So for me, this is not a complicated equation.

We don't need more time to deliberate and debate this.

The data and the evidence are extraordinarily clear.

Naperville is doing well, and we do well because we have a city council that recognizes that growth cannot come at the cost of human quality of life.

It cannot come at the cost of sacrificing the well-being of our children.

And as we continue to grow, recognize the impact that it has had in other communities and recognize that you have the ability to prevent that harm here without compromising long-term economic benefit by bringing in other industries and businesses that actually will help our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Jack Ma, Sean Craven, Ben McAdams, and Marilyn Schweitzer.

My name is Jack Ma, and I am a senior at Nequa Valley High School.

I grew up in Naperville, and I deeply care about the long-term choices this council makes on behalf of residents and ratepayers.

Originally, I began this public comment to acknowledge the effort and benefits of the CARES critical data center proposal.

Based on the CARES critical analysis, the project is expected to generate two to three million dollars per year in city revenue, with 90 to 95% coming from electric utilities taxes that are directly tied to electricity consumption.

In addition, the property taxes will also go to local schools.

However, the constituents in Naperville do not care nor support this data center.

In Keras' attempts to placate the people by decreasing the scale of the data center, the revenue that is generated through electrical utility taxes as well as property taxes proportionally decrease.

The value that we're getting right now as it decreases from the expected mega 72 megawatt capacity has been decreased down to 24 megawatt capacity.

So with all these changes to the plans, less value and benefit can be extracted from it.

One of the historical references was the Nokita uh campus, which employed a thousand individuals, more than a thousand individuals for long term employment.

With this data center, it could be completed within two to three years.

After that, if you look at the parking lot size, it can only house up to like 60 employees for long term.

My next point would be the H of Act systems, which I assume to be at 60% uh operation if modeling over time.

That could easily go higher during times of intense heat during the summer.

Another concern is the invisa sound technology that's used for the low frequency noise pollution.

That in addition with the high steel palisade fencing around the area will still produce uh a bad environment for or uh other use for the area.

And this could be a concern for residents because if this building is allowed to be made, then future construction with the second phase data center could increase public can occur without further public scrutiny.

Thank you for your time and your service.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Sean Craven.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and city council members.

Uh, my name is Sean Craven, and I'm here tonight to speak in support of the Keras Critical Data Center project.

I work for uh local 17 heat and frost insulators, and I represent the members of over 800 members for local 17.

I understand the concerns that many residents have about data centers and the potential impacts that they may have on their community.

I also recognize that much of the concerns come from misinformation and outdated information, particularly when it comes from water usage, electric electrical demands, rising costs and noise.

Uh, first, talk about the water consumption.

So this system is going to be a closed loop system.

Most of the previous data centers that were used use what was called an evaporative cooling system.

This does not use that type of system.

So it will use about 5,000 gallons of water a day, which was less than the previous uh building that was on that same site.

Um next, in terms of the electrical grid, Illinois, as most people in here know, is on a grid system with 13 other states.

So just because this data center isn't built here, if it's built somewhere else, our electricity is still gonna go up.

It doesn't matter if it's built in Indiana, it's gonna go up, if it's built in Iowa, it's gonna go up.

These we are on a 13 state grid.

So those are you know, just so people understand that.

Um talk about the noise.

I know that Keras has made uh significant um concessions with the amount of time that those generators will be used to keep that noise level down and limit the amount of time that they will be on.

Um, there's also been talk up here about that this is short-term work.

This is not short-term work for union workers.

There will be maintenance work in there constantly that our members will be working in there, whether it's insulators, uh electricians, tin knockers, fitters, so on and so forth.

So this is not short-term work for union workers that are in this area.

Um this project will represent a major investment, like I said, to local workers, union workers and labor.

Uh, we're talking about upwards of 100,000 work hours for our union workers, providing meaningful family supporting jobs for skilled tradespeople in this area.

That means economic benefits staying right here in this community.

Um, last I'd like to point out about the progress.

I often think about what would happen if this country, if we didn't embrace the industrial revolution, where would we where would we be today?

We wouldn't be in the economic, technological or global situation that we are.

Data centers are part of a modern infrastructure that pot that powers our economy, our communication, our health care, and our national security.

These facilities are going to be built somewhere.

If they're built here, this community has the opportunity to reap the economic labor and infrastructure benefits rather than watching them go to another state.

I encourage, oh, I'm out of time, but thank you for your time.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speakers are Ben McAdams, Marilyn Schweitzer, Peter Shulman, and Bob Perell.

My name is Ben McAdams.

Uh, I'll keep my remarks uh short here.

I'd like to echo the sentiments of previous speakers who spoke in opposition of this data center and urge the council to vote no tonight.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer.

Uh good evening, Marilyn Schweitzer.

Uh, the last minute adjustments do not change my points.

It is hard to imagine a more ill-advised location for Naperville's first data center.

Data centers are allowed only as a conditional youth in the most intensive zoning categories of office research and light industrial and industrial.

Yet this proposal places that intense youth in an area designated for future residential development where surrounding properties are already transitioning to housing.

The reality is simple.

People do not want to live next to a data center.

Approving this conditional use directly undermines the residential goals of the I 88 corridor established in the 2022 land use plan and reinforced by the 2025 I 88 corridor strategy.

Plans that have been moving towards successfully and by many accounts more economically beneficial the city.

When evaluating conditional uses, the criteria related to public health, safety, welfare, and compatibility may be debated.

Compliance with the comprehensive master plan cannot be.

This proposal clearly conflicts with that plan.

Approval of phase one or some reduced plan does not guarantee approval of phase two.

However, that appears to be the hope for the remaining 20 acres.

In that sense, future development of those acres is significantly diminished or effectively locks in a long-term outcome that neither the public nor staff can support.

The requirement to comply with the comprehensive plan exists for a reason.

It builds trust among residents, building owners, and developers, and it reduces risk when people invest in this community.

Consultants hired by the city repeatedly emphasize the importance of trust and predictability during the affordable housing process, and most recently the recommendations for the Fifth Avenue project.

The city will likely hear that same advice again this year.

Ignoring it continues to undermine investments in such planning.

Conditional youth approval is not guaranteed.

The petitioner chose to pursue a proposal that conflicts with the comprehensive plan, and that risk is theirs.

If a development alliance with existing zoning, that is one thing, but this does not.

This data center should not be approved, and the city should work to restore community trust that has been lost through this process.

Please vote no tonight.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Peter Shulman, followed by Bob Peralt, Connor Graham, and Laura Evans.

Good evening.

I am a 38-year resident of Naperville.

Many residents have cited the great utility demands, notably water and electricity, the air and noise pollution from diesel-powered backup generators, and the impact of quality of life and properties values of those that live closest to the data center.

But what's the benefit to Naperville?

Some transient jobs during construction, a relatively small number of ongoing jobs.

Data centers look really big.

You can see them on I-88, but employ actually very few people for per square foot.

And they can come from anywhere in Chicagoland, not just Naperville.

Network traffic travels at the speed of light over fiber optic cable.

A data center doesn't have to be built in Naperville for its residents to benefit technically from the data center's service, its product.

Building a data center may look good in the short term, but what about the long term?

The time that I've been here, I've seen telabs, Lucent, and other companies come here with great promise, and they're all gone.

At the rate that data centers are being built in the U.S., it's looking like a short-term boom with an uncertain future.

This data center will have competition from other data centers.

So how well is it going to do?

Building a data center in Naperville will lower the quality of life for the residents, especially those nearest to it.

It's the modern day analog of building a refinery in some sense.

And just ask the residents of Blue Island how that worked out for them.

The City Council's responsibility is not just fiscal.

The livelihood and quality of life in the city is dependent on your decisions.

How would you vote if this was going in next to your neighborhood?

The benefits to the data center would provide are greatly outweighed by all its costs.

It's outside company that wants to build a data center for its benefit.

Naperville doesn't need a data center.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Bob Peralt, followed by Connor Graham.

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

My name is Bob Perot.

I'm a business representative for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 701.

I am obviously speaking here tonight to discuss the proposed Keras Critical Data Center.

Data centers in general provide an exceptional amount of hours worked during construction for our journeyman wiremen and telecommunication members.

And a continued permanent workforce 24-7 to monitor the infrastructure and all equipment necessary to help keep the data center operational at all times.

This particular data center will provide approximately 100,000 labor hours for our local electrical contractors and members of local 701.

In addition, this project will also employ a significant number of apprentices who are educated between four and five years to eventually become journeyman wiremen and journeyman technicians.

More than 8,000 hours in total to become journey persons.

Projects like this help to ensure that our community continues to have the experience necessary to commute continue to move forward in a safe and experienced manner for the many construction projects the city of Naperville moves forward with.

This type of industry, as most know, also changes very fast.

Technological advances are constantly evolving.

These advances in technology create constant and significant recabling, maintenance, and overall rework of the data center as a whole, where our electricians and techs will go to work.

Who live and work in your community will always be needed.

Like the technological advances mentioned earlier, continually evolving inside the data center.

The simple fact is this Kerrick's critical data center is not like the so many others reported around the country.

Whether it be inaccurate energy consumption, water usage, or no clear understanding of what a tier four generator even is, which is what is going to be utilized should this project move forward, and generator fuel tanks that are incidentally not buried underground.

This data center will operate far more efficient than the existing buildings that have been there for decades with no complaint.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speakers are Connor Graham, Laura Evans, Frank Gervina, and Kendrick Sands.

Hello, my name's Connor Graham, Fair Meadow neighborhood resident.

Uh I feel the need to reiterate after the last few speakers that are elected officials answered to residents, not to union pressures.

Uh let me also remind you that the union leaders are simply doing their jobs by being here, uh, which I respect, but uh the rest of us are donating our time to be here.

We don't want to be.

Uh also I don't see any of these guys in my neighborhood when I go for a walk.

The rest of these people up here urging you to vote no.

I see them every day, living their lives, enjoying being outside.

No data center, no noise.

I ask that you vote to oppose this data center, find somewhere to build away from houses.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Laura Evans, followed by Frank Gravina.

Hi, I live in Aurora, Illinois, and I'm a thousand feet from a data center.

We don't like it.

I wouldn't wish it on anybody here.

We have a constant noise that doesn't go away.

I hear it in my house.

It's this low humming that never ends.

It gets louder and I and softer, but it never goes away.

We've been complaining about this since I think December, two year and a half ago, two years ago.

In April, the Transformers blew, the generators that they test every every month had to be run 24-7, three days in a row.

That noise was like helicopter on my roof.

It just shook, you couldn't get away.

It was just a constant shaking.

Your body was shaking.

You just you couldn't stand it.

I really think that yes, there's a need for data centers.

They do not need to be near homes.

And they really should look at this.

In 2017, when they decided when they brought this to our to Aurora, and I attended that city council meeting.

We were told, don't worry, you'll never know we're there.

We're gonna be great neighbors, we're not bringing in diesel, we're not townhomes.

You'll love us, we're quiet, we're just unassuming.

Oh my gosh, they were wrong.

And I I have since said I told you so to anybody I can say, anybody that that was there or know us, and of course, the data center center in our neighborhood as well.

I think it's great that they proposed bringing it down in size, but I can guarantee you as what they discovered by ours, they become full capacity in months.

So, what they're gonna do is they're gonna come back and say, you know what, that property we didn't expand into, we want to expand it to that now.

And then we're gonna do another one.

We have three expansions into ours, and the chillers are with killer.

It's the fans on the roofs, it's not the generators, it's the fans that create that noise.

So the noise, the diesel, the generators that they promised they're not gonna run, that runs because oops, we didn't know there was gonna be a transformer blowing, and we have to run it to keep the data centers going.

So all of this really needs to be looked at and considered, and you are all 100% on target.

It will affect their way of life.

We can't go in our backyard in the summer.

I can't open the windows.

It's that bad.

So please take a look at it.

I'm happy to answer any questions, but it is definitely affects your way of life.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next two speakers are Frank Gravina and Kendrick Sands.

Mr.

Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Frank Ravina.

I serve as business manager at IBW Local 701 and as Secretary Treasurer of DuPage County Building Trades Council.

I'm here today on behalf of the hardworking men and women across the many construction and maintenance trades we represent, thousands of whom call Neighborville home.

We are the representative of those who build, maintain, and operate these facilities, including electricians, plumbers, iron workers, operators, laborers, and so many more.

As interest in data centers have skyrocketed, misunderstandings and misinformation about their operations and impacts have increased too.

But our members work inside these facilities every day.

We know firsthand that data centers are safe, reliable, and engineered to operate efficiently.

They also provide something increasingly rare.

Steady, ongoing employment that helps maintain, that helps sustain careers in trades across the Chicago area.

These campuses build up neighborhoods and communities where they operate.

Data centers are not the same.

They are not all created equal.

This proposal has been designed for the specifics of this unique property and its current OIR zoning.

The city has negotiated a rigorous and tough development agreement that protects the community, rate pairs, and neighborhoods.

Concerns have been listened to, and appropriate actions have been taken.

This is how the process is designed to work.

The CARES Critical Campus will provide resources for our schools and governments for decades to come.

In America, in Dupe H County, and here in Naperville, many officials and candidates are talk are talking about affordability.

The easiest solution to this concern concern is to welcome the opportunity for the shared prosperity, work, and the investment in our communities.

If we want the middle class to live, raise a family, and thrive in Naperville, the first step is to welcome businesses willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in the community and support careers in the skilled trades.

Naperville has set the standard for how data centers can be responsibly reviewed, permitted, and operated.

Do not shut down economic development or the I-88 technology corridor.

I ask all of you to remember this.

Jobs are dignity, careers are stability, and a strong jobs corridor is the foundation for both.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Kendrick Sands, followed by a five-minute rebuttal from the petitioner.

Okay, hello.

Um, my name's Kendrick Sands.

I'm the uh president of the Fair Meadow Neighborhood Association.

Our neighborhood is completely united in opposition to this.

And I imagine if you ask the other three neighborhoods affected, you're not gonna find a single person who wants this here.

So I I implore you to listen to the citizens that are going to be impacted by this on a daily basis.

Um we just want to raise our families without this right next door.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

And we've been going for three hours and 13 minutes.

We're gonna take a seven-minute break.

We will be back at 920 for the five-minute rebuttal from the petitioner.

No, I'm good, I'm good, I'm good.

Okay, Mr.

Whitaker, you have five minutes for rebuttal.

Uh thank you.

This time I brought a phone so I could time my channel.

Mr.

Whitaker, we need the microphone up, we can't hear you.

This time I brought a phone so that I do have a five-minute timer.

I want to thank everybody for comments tonight, right?

As I said at the beginning, this has been a long and uh and certainly a hard case.

Um I I think by and large, um, all of the speakers were respectful, and it's always easier getting through uh cases like this when um everybody is respectful.

So I I think everybody for their comments tonight.

Um I I think there was some conjecture about why the reduction in scale and the the suggestion was that we were reducing scale because we knew that there was a harm.

Um in order to try to mitigate the harm, we were pulling uh a fast one at the last minute to reduce scale.

Um I I would suggest that that's not at all the case.

Um we've been I I have spent countless hours, um, I I guess not countless.

I I've spent like 20 hours um in meetings with uh Mr.

DeSanto and Mrs.

Lord uh negotiating OAA that's before you.

Uh it's like a 27-page document, um, which is just full of details that took a lot of time to get through.

Um of the details in that agreement is that the uh the power uh capacity to this facility would be capped at 36 megawatts.

That's 36 megawatts total load.

Um when you have 36 megawatts total load, you back into 24 megawatts of IT power.

Um so there is no grand conspiracy.

I I know oftentimes we go searching for rationale, and sometimes um mines get fanciful and they're looking for uh an extraordinary reason of why um why we made a change at the last minute, but the change at the last minute is entirely based on uh the supply of power that is available uh the comed has verified is available at the Indian Hill substation and is readily capable of serving this property.

Um I do want to point out that the property is uniquely positioned immediately adjacent to uh the Nokia uh to the Indian Hill substation.

Uh that is a primary reason that this is a site for a data center, um in addition to a lot of the history that we've gone through regarding the his regarding the uh the historic use of the property um and the ongoing use of the property for uh for Nokia, right?

Nokia is at the end of the day a telecommunications company, as was Bell Labs before them, as was uh Lucent after them.

So this has been a telecommunic telecommunications property for 60 years, and with the development of a data center, it will remain a telecommunications property um into the future.

Um what is the net effect of the reduction in scale of the facility?

I talked about it during the presentation.

Uh it's a reduction in all of the inputs.

So when we when when residents talk about noise, um the noise studies frankly need to be updated to reflect uh the reduction in the inputs.

When you go from 24 um cooling units to uh to 16 cooling units, there is obviously an output associated with that.

Um fewer units means fewer noise, uh which is going to mean less impact to adjacent residents.

Um I I heard a resident at the end say stand up and say, talk about residents walking through the community and uh no data center means no noise.

I I don't know how we're still missing the fact that there is a data center on the property today, right?

There is a data center at Nokia today.

Um I I couldn't tell you exactly how big the data center is, but we know it's there.

We know there's two uh generator sets, 259 feet from the residence.

We know that there's eight cooling units within 160 feet of the residence.

We can look at the aerial pictures, we can drive by, we can see those things.

The residents in Naper Commons all bought their homes with that data center adjacent.

That is incontrovertible.

The homes in Naper Commons all sold for more than what we thought the homes were going to sell for a Naper Commons.

Again, uncontrovertible.

The data center that sits there today, that's that predated the residents in Naper Commons did not impact values at Naper Commons.

It did not disturb their quiet enjoyment of their homes for the uh for the two, three years that they've been in the homes.

I think honestly, it's only been the last couple of months that some people began to realize that the data center was there.

Well, I understand that there's a lot of fear about the data center today.

Um I think with time, just like they lived in peace and comfort with the data center that exists today.

I think the data centers, the the residents here will live in peace with the data center that is built adjacent to the Nokia campus.

Um I I think I've got very few seconds left, but I do want to say that while there's a lot of discussion about uh about medical impacts associated or that the health and welfare of the community.

I I think it's actually absolutely imperative that we understand um that I got my own timer.

Um let me just finish saying that that risk or a hazard does not equal risk, right?

There needs to be a measurement of exposure.

When you have a when you have a hazard, it only becomes the speaker's time is out.

Folks, folks, the official timer is over at that dais.

It's not his clock.

Okay.

We're not going by the clock.

We have a timekeeper over there.

So I'm gonna permit the petitioner to finish his statement.

Go ahead.

The the comment is simply that there is a difference between a hazard and a risk.

We deal with hazards all the time in our daily lives.

Cocoa has lead in it.

Our kids eat chocolate because it's an acceptable level of risk based on exposure.

Our kids, our kids get on school buses.

I'm gonna ask for everybody to be respectful, let the petitioner finish so we can start a deliberations.

You may proceed.

Our kids get on school buses.

Diesel uh diesel garbage trucks come through our neighborhoods.

The the the townhome neighborhood is plowed by a bobcat that runs on diesel.

There are acceptable levels of risk for operation of diesel, uh diesel engines in our community.

We've all come to that conclusion.

We see them running up and down Warrenville Road, Naperville Road, and 88.

At the end of the day, we are we are asking you to give us an opportunity to do air dispersion modeling so that we can get to that measurement of exposure.

We want to quantify what the emissions are from the diesel uh from the diesel engines that would be operating on this facility based on the proposed operations in the OEA, and we want to come back to you with that type of scientific information so that you can make an educated decision.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Holzar.

Uh I was just uh councilman at a point of order.

But is it move?

Yeah, he's he's done.

So um, Councilman Holzar, you were first in line for well, I don't know what the point of order is.

Right.

Well, I I just got notified by the city manager that the time was up.

So that's what I'm going by is the timekeeper who's on our official dias, who's the official timekeeper for notification city manager who just whispered in my ear that he's completed.

That's why he's now added.

All right, thank you, Mayor.

Go ahead.

Um thank you to everyone who came out tonight.

Um, and I'm gonna call a few speakers up, and in the interest of time, I'll ask uh Mr.

Gravina to uh to be the first one to come up.

Um I want to start out by saying my definition of leadership is giving people something to believe in that's bigger than themselves.

I think when the community comes out like this, it it helps people to believe that Napraville can solve problems in a way that's more constructive than maybe what we see nationally.

Um we've had many speakers who've come out with very different perspectives tonight.

Um, and even though their opinions differ on this specific project, I hope that we can bring out some of the value in what they all have to bring to the community um as we move forward in a constructive way.

So with that, Mr.

Gravina, um a few questions.

So you are with IBEW, correct?

That is correct.

IBW local 701.

And I'm gonna ask you a question beyond local 701 and just expand this to the state of Illinois.

Approximately how many people are under the IBEW umbrella in the state of Illinois.

We have approximately 50,000 electricians.

Okay, about 50,000 um electricians.

That's a lot.

And and I heard you talk about why it's important for people to get training.

I'm sorry, you talked about how people can get training to become journeymen and women um through developments like the one that's being proposed.

Can you describe the importance of people getting that kind of training in their journey?

Absolutely.

Uh the electrical field is is a skilled labor.

Uh, and in that field, uh, we have to safety is the utmost importance.

Uh it's you know, electricity is something you can't see, you can't smell, and when you feel it, it's too late.

That's why we train all of our apprentices uh to be the the best and most qualified electricians to do this work.

Uh data centers are important.

You know, we uh they employ a lot of our members.

Uh in we we offer thousand hours of in-class training, but we offer 8,000 hours of on-the-job training.

And the on-the-job training is where you learn on how to be safe and how to construct uh the uh uh electrical work uh in a in a safe and qualified manner.

And these data centers provide that opportunity for our our younger JWs, our younger apprentices.

Uh you know, the the amount of uh conduit and uh uh you know uh conductors that go into just one facility is immense.

And uh we have the ability to uh you know use that work as a trading ground.

Uh obviously supervised by our journeyman layerman, our foreman, and our general foreman, you know.

So this basically you have a five-year window to learn as much as you possibly can, and these provides a great education for our members.

Thank you.

And um, another speaker, previous speaker had made a comment um about sort of the negative impacts of AI on children and some other comments like that.

Um I want to be clear that at least for me, this this is not a referendum on AI.

Okay, based on the discussions that you and I had earlier today about what you're seeing in construction in the Midwest, is it is it fair to say that AI will continue regardless of what happens in the city of Naperville?

Like we are not going to stop AI with a vote tonight.

Is that fair to say?

That is very true.

That is is not you're not gonna stop it.

Okay.

No.

Um and then a final comment I'm gonna I'm just gonna make to you and then ask uh a question about it, is um with 50,000, you know, people in the state of Illinois, that is a huge huge thing.

Like I just want to make sure everyone appreciates how good of jobs those are.

I've got a son who's in high school right now, he'll be at COD next year.

And um, I just actually learned from you today that he may be an IBEW member himself very shortly because he's going into um film and camera work, which is something that you cover in this area.

So I I just want to make it clear that regardless of how this goes tonight, this should be a first and foremost concern for us that we are providing good jobs um to our next generation.

And giving a shout out to the city of Naperville too for its responsible bidder ordinance to make sure that we are employing um good union labor.

All right, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um couple other comments.

I'm not trying to pick on Mr.

Rasheed, but he and I know each other well, so I will.

Um I don't agree with his analysis um regarding water uh this evening.

I think that's a different concern than the one that's been raised for the censor uh center.

I think analysis of you know this being like shards of glass to children is hyperbolic.

I don't think that is a place in this discussion.

Um I also do not agree that a reduction of a scale in a project is an admission of harm.

Um the facts and the law matter here, and I just want to make sure in our deliberations tonight that we are sticking to facts.

Um also I don't look at this, anything that's happened here in any way to be a discredit to the developer themselves.

I think they've been more than open with us in sharing what they can.

Um we've had invitations to tour other better data centers.

Um it is not a referendum on their professionalism in any way, and I don't want it to be seen that way.

Um said that, they are in a very difficult situation.

Um, and that's a situation where the municipal code has been in many ways have to be stretched beyond recognition to allow this particular development, specifically with regards to standards one and two, based on the testimony of our PCC meetings with regard to the general welfare of their community, as we've heard testimony from so many residents, property values, and not even to mention standard for not even being close to met.

Um I'm actually gonna ask Mr.

Whittaker uh to come up because I had a a follow-up question for him.

If he still thank you for your time.

Yep, thanks, Frank.

Okay, thank you, uh Mr.

Whitaker.

So I think one of the first comments you made in your presentation was that the council members are struggling to understand the issue.

Can you repeat that comment?

Yeah, I I said that I have heard from both residents and council members that there's so many alternate facts out there in the world surrounding this case.

So what you're saying is hard to heard from other people that council members are struggling to understand this because I I don't that's not what I heard the first time around.

Are you sure you didn't say something along the lines?

No, I I what I heard is that I have heard from council members that there is so much misinform, there's so much different information out there that it is it is difficult to discern fact from fiction.

So we have told you there's so much misinformation.

I didn't I didn't I I didn't say you.

I I have not spoken to you about this project at all.

Okay, well, I you know, for the record, your advocacy style is is not a factor for consideration here, maybe a conversation your client will want to have with you later.

That's the only question I had for you.

Um so Mr.

Janner, I was asking, I was hoping hoping that you could come up.

Okay, and before I I uh talk to Mr.

Janner, I just wanted to ask Mr.

DeSanto a question.

Um, Mr.

DeSanto, who choose who chose to have this issue be heard this evening?

You know, I think we were in meetings with the petitioner, and we decided that this was the appropriate meeting, but it was uh with their consent that we put it on the okay.

So to be clear, the petitioner chose to have this issue heard on this evening.

That's correct.

Did you put any pressure on the developer to choose this evening for the hearing?

I did not.

Did the city manager's office put any pressure on the developer to choose this evening for the hearing?

Mr.

Craig.

We did not.

Okay, and you could have choosed.

I'm gonna go back to Mr.

DeSanto.

The developer could have chosen an evening at a later month to have this be heard, correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

So now and Mr.

Janner, we have a last minute kind of news study that the developer is bringing up.

Um they're saying that they haven't had the opportunity yet to meet with us regarding OAA changes, um, bringing some new information that was no, you know, not what was at Plan Commission.

Um all this to say I sincerely hope there is not going to be some kind of motion to delay this process at the last minute.

It strikes me as a totally contrived result um that would subvert the very rush to hear this issue that was only created by the petitioner.

And so I'm just gonna ask you, Mr.

Janner, do you do you want to see this issue delayed on behalf of the residents that are in this room?

No, I think the case has been tried.

Both sides have said their piece, and it's time for a verdict.

Okay.

I'm gonna uh do us all a favor and not ask every single speaker to come back to the dais, but I am gonna ask people in the crowd how many people had arranged child care to be here or bring your kids to be here.

All right.

My my final comment is um, you know, for everyone who's here, uh if this data center is not approved, something will be developed on this site.

And that could very well be a conforming use, it could be medium density residential.

Um Naperville is not an anti-development community.

Okay, so I uh the people I've spoken with in your group are very clear on this, and and I I just want to make sure that that is out there.

Um if it does end up being medium density residential, then there is an affordability gain there.

You know, we have an immediate immense shortage of housing in Naperville right now.

Um so anyway, in conclusion, I I sincerely hope we are not going to get a proposal for a second bite at the apple.

I don't think that's at all fair to the people who came out of this room.

Um and I just want to set a reminder of who set the schedule to make this um here tonight.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman McBroom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh so I think my first crush question is gonna be directed to um Mr.

DeSanto and then I'll go back to uh Mr.

Whitaker.

Um so you know, the legal question is a big one.

Um I think most people have seen the letters that we've received.

Um, to my friend uh Rich Janner.

Um I don't think it was a uh 11th hour kind of thing.

Um, you know, the letter that we got from the uh owner's attorney, you know, unfortunately just confirmed all the legal guidance that I've seen that's been confidential.

So there's been a lot of correspondence that you have not been allowed to see because it's confidential.

Um the same with our planning and zoning commission.

Um they received all the same uh correspondence.

So um, you know, I've had a lot of residents I've met with a lot of you, um, you know, great people, we've had great conversations, and um, you know, I hear from a lot of you that you like data centers, or you I hear a lot of this, I love data centers.

Uh we just need to put them in the right places, and I I actually don't like data centers.

I'm not in the I don't I don't love data centers.

I mean I love Centennial Beach and Sullivan's and stuff like that, but I don't I don't love data centers.

Um but you know, this isn't about what I love or like or what I would want next to my house.

I do see it as what are we legally allowed to do?

Um so I I do think you'd have a difficult time.

Um you know, with those first three conditions, I I think the that argument holds true that I mean, under those standards, I think you would say that the Nokia uh property doesn't meet those conditional standards.

Um so it does fall down to this conversation about that fourth conditional standard, and that's uh you know, I I went to PCC when I heard that argument, I said, you know, how did you guys overcome this?

And and they had legal guidance from our our city uh attorneys, our city team, our our planning staff.

Um so you know, I it's like, where am I supposed to get my legal advice from our city legal team that deals with code all the time, uh, from our professional planning staff, uh, from our PCC uh volunteers who spent I don't know, 15 hours listening to testimony and getting the same legal advice that we have recently been getting.

Um, or or uh a couple attorneys on our city council.

I I mean I no disrespect, but it's like where am I supposed to get my my advice from?

So when there's a real risk here, and so I want to ask Mr.

DeSanto, you know, from the correspondence we've been getting, and then this correspondence that we got from the owner's attorney that kind of confirmed everything that we've been hearing all along.

It sounds like there's a high probability of a legal challenge, and also a high probability that we would lose lose that legal challenge.

If that happened, uh my question would be what would be what would we as a city be exposed to, and if we lost, what would the result be?

Counselor?

That's a very complex question that I'm not prepared to answer here publicly.

I could advise counsel on that privately.

I think that is advice that should be protected on the attorney client privilege.

But I let you know that a challenge would go to the circuit courts most likely, or it could possibly go to federal court, there'd be a judge who would review it, and that judge would make a determination of whether the city honored its processes and its ordinances appropriately.

And if not, it may be remanded back for reconsideration, or there may be other remedies depending on what the challenger brings forward in requests.

Okay.

Is the uh owner's attorney here that sent the letter to us?

So the the owner's attorney is Mr.

Friedman, um El Rod Friedman.

Um he is a reputable um municipal attorney in the region.

Um he's not here this evening.

He has uh he had an engagement uh at a city council meeting in displains uh this evening, so he was not able to be here, which is part of the reason that he had submitted uh the letter in advance.

Okay, maybe maybe you can answer some.

I mr Mr.

Cruz here, I think, I think is I don't know if he's retained or he's representing or who exactly is representing maybe the neighborhood, or I I don't know, but uh and and he's eloquently made made some uh legal arguments here, and I just think it's fair that like you know, specifically that fourth condition.

If if we can like would you be able to answer uh your perspective or how the courts have viewed that yeah, I I think that's a totally fair question.

So I I I think I I agree with I I agree with the sentiment in um Mr.

Friedman's letter that there's a ultimately a reasonableness test associated with how the how the council responds to this question.

Um as it relates to the last item, I don't think it's an all or nothing proposition.

I don't think it's that it's a I don't think it's binary.

Um I think that the the city council looks at the the whole scope of the project and makes an appropriate consideration.

Um I can tell you that the the planning staff um looked at the the last that last item with respect to the comprehensive plan um and they said that there's existing zoning in place and the existing zoning in place controls.

Um and it it's interesting, right?

Because in preparation for the meeting, I went back and I looked at, you know, I I specifically watched some of the meetings when the comprehensive plan was being adopted, right?

And there were repeated statements by by staff about what the comprehensive plan is.

And the comprehensive plan is not a change in zoning, uh, but the comprehensive plan is a guiding document.

So we're not doing anything to change property rights with the comprehensive plan.

We're just kind of outlining what could be the possible vision for the future of Naperville.

Now, fast forward, the the conclusion that I think some people would like to reach today is by virtue of having adopted the comp plan, you took the ORI district, and with respect to this property, you excised half of the code.

You said, Well, we we removed your ability to you for any conditional use on this property by virtue of having adopted the comprehensive plan.

I think the the courts have spoken on that issue, and the courts have been very clear uh that a comprehensive plan is a guiding document, uh, a comprehensive plan, if not adopted pursuant to ordinance with notice of a property owner, um, cannot be a binding zoning um a binding zoning decision on the property owner.

So I I think what Mr.

Elrod has positioned in his letter um is that um Franklin Partners, which is the owner of the property.

Um I would note that Franklin Partners is also an owner of property that has done significant development in Naperville.

Um, you know, the the principal of Franklin um has done a wonderful job reinvesting in the corridor.

Um so this is a kind this is a common player that we've seen in the corridor.

I worked with uh I worked with the principal when we were when we worked on uh 1100 1,000 and 1100 East Warrenville Road.

Um those were former loosened buildings that got repositioned for multi-tenant um and are successful office developments today.

Um they've worked on uh the Schumann, which of course is the old office max um building and have repositioned that.

Um so I I think it's interesting to note that um while there well there's certainly a sharp tone in the in the letter that came from Mr.

Freeman, he represents a a very well-known quantity um in Naperville.

He represents somebody who's made significant investments over uh over his career in Naperville and has a very has had a very positive proposed input on the on the corridor.

So I I think that at the end of the day, I believe that that last condition is not binary, it's not it doesn't excise part of the code as it applies to this property.

It does not absolutely prohibit uh a conditional use from being approved here tonight.

Um I I think the code become or the comp plan is guidance, and when we look at the historical context of of what's happening in the corridor, what Naperville's preference has been with the corridor, even the NDP study.

I think there's a lot of information that speaks to um maintaining integrity of the corridor as a uh as a center for jobs.

I appreciate that.

I didn't take the letter as a threat.

I I mean I didn't take Mr.

Cruz as a threat either.

These are just arguments, right?

And um, so um, you know, this is hard for for everyone here.

Um like I said, I I've told people I don't think anybody's pro-data center, right?

Um that's not the decision here.

And um, but uh, you know, people know me.

I I I have an inability.

I'm I'm just not gonna be able to vote for something that that you know I watched PCC uh PCC commissioner sit through hours of test.

They saw the same information we did.

And and why, you know, I I know the writing on the wall here, I think I know how the vote's gonna go.

So um, and that's that's fine.

You know, I told my colleagues not a hill I'm gonna die on either.

Um, but uh those those planning commissioners spent a lot of time and they saw the exact same information we saw, and and and and they came to uh uh overwhelming conclusion that this was the decision that they had to make.

And the only conclusion that I could make that our vote would be flip-flop is they don't have to run for re-election.

So I I don't make votes to uh to to try to you know do re-elected again.

This job's not that important to me.

So if you guys want to punish me for a no vote up uh uh yes vote up here, you know, so be it.

Um but uh I hope you know I hey I vote my conscience, I do my homework and my research, and uh I'm not gonna make a political vote here.

So, but I do appreciate all your passion.

I do sympathize with the situation, uh, but I just think that's this is the only choice I can make in this situation.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

I don't really have questions.

Um I don't know if we're still in the question phase.

I have comments I can make if and if others don't have questions.

Open microphone.

Okay.

All right.

If you'll indulge me for a few, uh maybe a couple extra minutes.

I usually try to be short, but I've got some comments um to make on the case overall.

Um first I want to just say thank you to everybody involved in the process.

Uh many thanks are due to our city staff members first and foremost.

Um, they have been working on this for you know almost a year, many, many months.

Uh, thank you to the petitioner and their attorney, uh, both of whom, in my opinion, have been extremely accommodating and extremely professional throughout this entire process.

Uh special thanks are owed to our planning and zoning commissioners, as councilman McBroom just said, they sat through many, many hours of difficult testimony um over the course of many meetings, uh, and they helped establish the record that we have in front of us today.

And thank you to the residents who have taken time out of their lives to be involved on this issue, and as Mr.

Whitaker said, thank you to everybody tonight um for on both sides of the issue for keeping your comments overwhelmingly factually based and respectful.

Uh we very much appreciate that.

Um we as a council uh have not had much or or any opportunity to speak much about this proposal yet publicly, uh, but I think I can speak for myself, certainly, and and I think for most, if not all my colleagues, and saying that we've all spent a tremendous amount of time working on this issue, uh, including watching or attending all the planning and zoning commission hearings, meeting with the petitioner, meeting with residents, touring other data centers, reading all of the exhibits which I have done that were part of this agenda item and studying the ill uh relevant Illinois case law that deals with conditional uses like the one we were being asked to consider tonight.

Uh and to be clear, we are not here to support or oppose the existence of data centers in the city of Naperville or the state of Illinois or anywhere in the country.

Uh the fact of the matter is that data centers are conditional uses in the ORI zoning districts.

Instead, the issue before us tonight is whether a data center is appropriate at the specific location in question.

We looked at section 6-3-8 of the city code regarding the purpose of conditional use uses, and it provides an relevant part that there are certain uses which, because of their unique characteristics, cannot be properly classified in any particular district or districts without consideration in each case of the impact of those uses upon adjacent land and of the public need for the particular use in the particular location.

And to implement that purpose, the city code sets forth the standards for approval of a conditional use.

The burden of proof rests with the petitioner to demonstrate by preponderance of the evidence and through competent evidence and the record that the proposed use satisfies each of the applicable standards in the zoning ordinance, all four, not just one, two, or three.

They've got to meet all four.

Failure to meet any one standard provides sufficient grounds for denial.

The first conditional use standard is that the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Based on the evidence that was presented during the planning and zoning commission hearings, including but not limited to evidence presented by individuals who have credentials as highly qualified medical professionals.

I'm concerned that locating the proposed data center this close to four and soon to be five neighborhoods of residential properties would be detrimental to the public health safety and general welfare.

And I find that the petitioner has not met its burden by preponderance to show that the use will not be detrimental to public health safety and general welfare, and that failure alone justifies denial of the application.

The second conditional use standard is that the proposed conditional use will not be injurious to the enjoyment of other property in the immediate area for the purposes already permitted, not substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.

For the reasons that I just discussed, I believe there was evidence before the planning and zoning commission to show that the data center may well be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate area, and many people are very concerned that their property values will be significantly reduced if the data center is located nearby.

Again, it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that property values will not be diminished and impaired.

And I carefully reviewed the housing trends LLC report that was submitted by the petitioner, and I did not find it to be persuasive.

I think the record establishes that there is a substantial risk that the property values in the adjacent neighborhoods will be significantly diminished, and the petitioner failed to persuasively rebut said evidence of value diminution.

This failure also alone justifies denial.

The third conditional use standard is that the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the adjacent property for uses permitted in the district.

In this case, the proposed data center will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the neighborhoods that are largely objecting to the data center because those neighborhoods are already fully built out.

The proposed site for the data center, however, is located on 20 acres of a larger lot of land comprised of 41 acres, and if the data center is constructed, the 21 acres immediately adjacent to the data center will have limited development possibilities.

In fact, since the time that this data center was proposed, nothing has been proposed for the immediately adjacent 21 acres other than another data center.

Therefore, I find that granting the proposed conditional use would impede the orderly development and approvement of the adjacent property for uses permitted in the ORI zoning district, and that the petitioner has not met its burden for the third conditional use standard, which also alone justifies denial.

As an aside, I for one would be supportive of considering residential zoning in this area, consistent with the city's comprehensive master plan, and I've heard others suggest a variety of potential residential and commercial uses that might be appropriate as well.

The fourth and final conditional use standard is that the establishment of the conditional use is not in conflict with the adopted comprehensive master plan.

The comprehensive master plan, which was adopted by the city council just a few years ago, designates the future land use of the subject property as medium density to residential, which obviously conflicts with the proposed use of a data center.

Since the standard is a bit technical, I believe it is important to carefully review the relevant case law where Illinois courts of review have considered similar questions.

One of the key cases comes from our own city related to our Savior's Evangelical Lutheran Church that is on Washington Street just south of Edward Hospital.

In that case, the second district appellate court stated that an applicant for conditional use permit has the burden of proving that the proposed use meets all of the standards required by the controlling zoning ordinance.

That case was decided back in 1989, and the appellate court found that the city improperly in that case denied the conditional use, but primarily the court's holding was a basis of a First Amendment religious protection that the applicant had claimed in court.

I found it particularly interesting if you read the details of that case from 1989 that our city's conditional use ordinance at that time that the case was decided had the same first three factors as our current ordinance, but the fourth factor related to our adopted comprehensive master plan was not included at that time.

The fourth factor was added more recently as part of a larger code update in 2013.

The case of Chicago Heights versus Living Word, which was decided by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2001 is also relevant to that change in our code.

In living word, the city of Chicago Heights denied a special use permit for a church on the basis that the proposed use was inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan.

The Illinois Supreme Court found that was not a valid basis for denial in that case because consistency with the master plan was not one of the criteria listed in the city's zoning ordinance at the time of the decision.

The court stated, however, and I quote, the zoning ordinances may expressly provide as a standard for issuance of a special permit that the proposed use at the particular location be compatible with or not negatively impact the local comprehensive zoning plan, end quote.

In our case, a prior city council made the legislative decision that consistency with our comprehensive master plan should be a requirement for approving a conditional use.

And now this council has to answer the question of whether or not the proposed data center is consistent with the city's comprehensive master plan.

As I mentioned earlier, the city's comprehensive master plan for the subject property denotes its future use as medium density residential, which arguably is enough to find that the petitioner does not meet their burden to satisfy the fourth standard.

The analysis of that fourth factor does not necessarily, however, end with that question, as the city's comprehensive master plan is more nuanced than simply color coding designated uses.

The comprehensive master plan also provides guidelines, policies, and recommendations intended to guide zoning decisions based on the particular facts of a particular development.

And that is consistent with the approach reflected in the conditional use language in the city's code at 6-3-8 semicolon one.

In my opinion, if the proposed data center really were a good fit for the location where it is proposed to be constructed, the fact that the comprehensive master plan is color-coded for medium density residential would not necessarily by itself bar finding that the data center is compatible with that plan.

In fact, there are other areas zoned ORI within the city where a data center might be a good fit.

However, the critical problem in this case is that the location of the proposed data center on the subject property is not consistent with the comprehensive master plan, and it is not a good fit based on the evidence in the record.

One of the most important standards that courts consider when determining whether a zoning decision is reasonable or is arbitrary and capricious is the existing use and character of nearby property.

As noted earlier, there are four and soon to be five residential developments near to the subject property, and the residents of those neighborhood neighboring residential communities have very real and I believe legitimate concerns about the siting of a data center at this location, including potential adverse health impacts and diminishment of property values.

While there is little argument that data centers are needed to facilitate the smooth operation of modern technologies, a data center is not necessarily needed at this particular location.

Data centers are propagating at a rapid pace throughout the state, and it is possible that other locations within the city of Naperville would be appropriate as well.

Applying the case law factors for overall reasonableness, the proposal conflicts with the land use master plan's medium density residential designation and nearby residential character, outweighing any public need at this site, especially given potential alternative ORI locations.

While the land use master plan allows flexibility for innovation, the record shows that this site's proximity to residences creates incompatibility that has not been mitigated sufficiently.

Therefore, I believe that the petitioner has not successfully met the last of the city's conditional use standards, and this failure alone justifies denial, though I emphasize it is not my sole basis.

And while I respect the planning and zoning commission's recommendation for approval with conditions, the full record persuades me that the petitioner has not met its burden on each standard and failure on any one alone justifies denial.

So for all the reasons I've discussed, I will vote to deny the request for approval of a conditional use for a data center at this location.

And I will pass that vote, recognizing that it is objectively true that not all data centers are alike, and that the petitioner has gone above and beyond, in my opinion, in an attempt to address many of the concerns that have been raised by city staff and concerned residents.

However, ultimately, our decision as a council has to be grounded in the ordinance that governs this conditional use request, and I simply do not believe the petitioner has satisfied the required standards for approval of a conditional use.

Finally, on a just slightly different note, I would like to briefly discuss the fact that both the owner and the subject property, uh I'm sorry, the owner of the subject property and some of the residents objecting to the data center have raised the possibility, at least, if not threatened, that they will file a lawsuit against the city if the council's decision is not in their favor.

To state the obvious, I hope that does not happen.

Uh, if it does, I certainly hope the city's decision is upheld.

Um, and it's easy enough for either side to file complaints in circuit court.

Uh, Illinois appellate courts and the Supreme Court have generally shown deference to municipalities and counties in these types of cases, so long as the government's decision is not arbitrary, capricious or violative of constitutional rights, such as the freedom of religion, like in the old saviors case.

And reviewing the case law, it's it's instructive for how we should make this uh decision tonight.

Um, but as a practical point, I think it's also uh interesting to review what happened in those cases after the court cases were decided.

Um, in Claren versus Lyle, which is one of the key conditional use cases in Illinois.

Uh Meyer wanted to build a superstore on Chicago Avenue, and they fought it for many, many years, uh, all the way through the Illinois Supreme Court.

And eventually, after many years, Meyer sold the property to a resident defense developer, and today there are homes now where Meyer wanted to build that store in the living word case that's come up.

The church at issue also fought all the way through the Illinois Supreme Court over many years for a right to open a church in Chicago Heights, only to eventually locate in Forrest Park instead.

While these cases are difficult, and significant amount of money is at stake, I've handled enough litigation in my own career to know that litigation is almost always extremely expensive for both parties while almost never providing a truly positive outcome for either.

Regardless of the outcome tonight, I urge everybody involved to work together in good faith to find the best possible outcome, both for this property and for the city of Naperville.

Thank you.

Councilwal McGane.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I too don't have any questions, but um would like to share some comments.

Uh I want to thank, I want to add on to what others have already said, and I want to begin by sincerely thanking everyone who has dedicated their time and energy to this proposal that includes the petitioners, the city staff, the planning and zoning commissioners, our union partners, nearby data centers that allowed us the opportunity to visit community members and especially the residents who live near the proposed site.

Watching this process unfold as someone who just started a few months ago on city council, um, has for me been an example of democracy at its best, listening to all the stakeholders and having a civil uh discussion about it, which from my vantage point was the case.

There was there was civility and respect in our community, um, although rigorous debate, uh, which which is good and important.

From the beginning, I saw it as my responsibility to keep an open mind and listen carefully to all the stakeholders and remain guided by process and the evidence presented.

Um, I know um council member McBroom suggested some of us may have been motivated otherwise, but I can tell you from my own experience, I'm I don't know if I'm running for a re-election.

I haven't made that decision yet, and I would never let that guide my decision making, nor do I feel that any of my council members would do that.

Um, the detail with which we have agonized over some of this data is real and sincere.

So I I just want to share that.

As required under the Naperville municipal code, my decision is based on whether the petitioner has met its burden by competent evidence in the Planning Zoning Commission record to satisfy each of the four conditional use standards.

As a reminder, and I know it's been stated, failure to meet any one standard provides sufficient grounds for denial.

I will be honest, over the past few months to show that there many of us kept an open mind.

We were going back and forth.

I think I had a debate in my mind constantly over the uh over the last five months to kind of uh sift through this evidence.

Um that said, after reviewing the record before us, I find that I have more concerns than confidence.

I join in the concern raised by other councilpersons, especially uh what council uh men um Kelly just brought up regarding the fourth conditional use standard.

Though I do not rely on it alone, my most significant concerns relate to the following aspects of the first two conditional use standards.

Um, that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the to or endanger the public well health, safety, and general welfare, and that the proposed use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the media area for the purpose already permitted.

From early on, um, I had a lot of questions about emissions associated with backup generators.

While the generators are intended for emergency use and periodic testing, regular testing is still required.

Monthly testing is predictable, but what's less predictable are the weather events, storms and power outages.

Um, this year alone, the surrounding area has experienced multiple outages.

Data centers at this scale are new to our community, and that novelty introduces uncertainty.

That's real.

Given that I believe it is reasonable to approach potential impacts with caution.

Concerns raised by residents together with the letter signed by 25 physicians that work here that live here, um, and evidence on diesel emissions, for example, the particulate matter and nitrogen oxides linked to asthma per expert testimony and the third party noise emissions reviews, contribute to a reasonable concern that has not been alleviated to my satisfaction.

While current estimates may not require a formal air quality study, the absence of that requirement does not for me eliminate the underlying questions related to the public's health and welfare, particularly given the twin the generators' proximity to 95 homes within 1,500 feet.

Based on this record, the petitioner has not met its burden to show the use will not be detrimental under the first two conditional use standards.

This failure alone justifies denial.

The owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement, otherwise referred to as the OAA, which is part of tonight's agenda for the proposed data center, spans 126 pages, including exhibits such as CARIS Critical Data Center Community Stewardship Pledge, and I appreciate the efforts reflected in the OAA to attempt to mitigate potential negative impacts of the data center on the community.

However, despite the number and complexity of the requirements in the OAA, I believe they failed to sufficiently address the deficiencies in meeting the conditional use standards applicable to this proposed data center.

Instead, they underscore the fact that we are not in a position to represent our constituents that that the operation of that data center, which would which would be located in the vicinity of four residential neighborhoods, will allow these neighborhoods the quiet enjoyment of their homes and give them the confidence that by living in proximity to the center, they're not jeopardizing the health and welfare of the families.

The question for me is not whether we can make a data center work on paper, but whether this truly fits the site and if it requires this much medic mitigation.

This is not about opposing development, it is about ensuring that we approve development that aligns with our community and our planning framework and our ability to realistically oversee it over the long term.

Um I consider the third of the conditional use standards that that is the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the adjacent property for use permitted on the district.

And I remain concerned about electric capacity and long-term planning.

If approved, the data center would become the city's largest electrical consumer.

The capacity of both Comed's and Naperville's electric systems is not unlimited.

In light of the uncertainty of the future availability and cost of electricity, I am concerned that approving this proposal may constrain the city's ability to support future development in the I-88 quarter without substantial additional investment of the city time and resources.

While this concern pertains to the third standard, um, it also pertains to a component of the first conditional use standard that the proposed use will not be detrimental to general welfare.

This failure under the third standard alone also just justifies denial in addition to its overlap with the first standard.

Um in conclusion, based on the record before us and applying the required standards for a conditional use, I'm just not persuaded that this proposal satisfies each of the necessary criteria for approval.

Failure on any one standard justifies denial, and while I respect deeply respect the PCC's 8-1 recommendation for approval with conditions, the full record just persuades me, does not persuade me otherwise.

For those reasons and with respect for all efforts of everyone involved, I will be voting no on the proposed data center.

Council Moyd.

Thank you, Mayor.

First of all, I'd like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone involved in the process.

Many thanks or do to our staff who's I know they work countless hours and uh many months to get this prepared for us.

Um I like to also thank the Planning and Zoning Commission for the great work that they've done and the amount of time they put into it as well.

And also want to thank the petitioner and their team of experts for their professionalism throughout the process.

And of course, I want to thank the residents who took time out of their lives to engage, ask questions, and share their perspectives on this issue.

I agree with my fellow council members that we have devoted a significant amount of time on this issue, both in discussions among ourselves and in conversations with members of the public, as well as the petitioner, and several of us have had the opportunity to visit data centers in other communities, and I appreciate the coordination to make that happen.

While I respect the PZC's 8-1 recommendation for approval with conditions, the full record persuades me otherwise.

With everything that has been said, our responsibility tonight is to determine whether the petitioner has met each of the criteria required for a conditional use under the under the municipal code.

The burden rests with the petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of competent evidence in the PZC record that the proposal satisfies each standard.

Failure to meet any one of those provides sufficient grounds for denial.

As I evaluate the aspect of the second conditional use, that the conditional use will not substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.

I continue to struggle with the potential impact on surrounding property values.

I fully acknowledge that none of this, none of us have a crystal ball, and we cannot predict with certainty what will happen to property values over time.

However, the burden rests with the petitioner to demonstrate that their proposed development will not substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood.

While I have reviewed the housing trend report that was submitted, I am not convinced that it sufficiently demonstrates that there will be no adverse effect on property values in the surrounding neighborhood.

This failure under the second conditional use standard alone justifies denial.

On the other significant condition for me is consistency with the comprehensive master plan.

Though I do not rely on it alone.

While the plan designates the site for medium density residential, it allows flexibility for case by site evaluation.

Yet this site's proximity to residences creates incompatibility.

And for these reasons, uh, and despite the petitioners' efforts to address these concerns, I cannot support the request for conditional use for this property.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um thank you to uh all the residents that have consistently come to these meetings.

Um planning and zoning meetings, obviously.

Uh the petitioner for putting in all the work it's taken to to get here to this point.

Um appreciate meeting with uh some of the residents I see here tonight.

Um I do I do appreciate the fact that you know some number of them had said that they're not explicitly opposed to uh to data centers themselves.

Uh so I do appreciate that, and I do appreciate their understanding with uh I guess getting themselves educated on the uh electricity situation and uh and its impacts.

Um I bring up uh them uh their them being not opposed to data centers, just to contrast that with folks who uh I suppose uh fear them for for whatever reason, despite using search engines and storing their pictures there.

But uh one of the residents when I brought that up, said ignore that, ignore the the uh the hypocrisy there.

So um, you know, that being said, um speaking with the residents about the various uh about the various conditions.

I don't I don't think I need to repeat them anymore that's been done and brought up here, I guess at this point.

Um that being said, uh with the new information that the petitioners brought here tonight, I'd certainly like to be able to chance have a chance to review that um and see what impacts that has uh with with regard to how it would affect my decision.

So I'd like to be able to review that information to uh be able to make a decision before prior to being able to make a decision tonight.

Thank you, Mr.

Mr.

Whitaker.

Before I ask my questions of the petitioner, I I do uh want to also thank everyone who's here on all sides of the matter for taking their time to engage and share their perspectives with the city council.

I know every money on the city council takes their job seriously, and it's our obligations at elected officials and our legal obligation as representative of the city in the zoning case to give this proposal every bit of proper attention it deserves.

Mr.

Whitaker, uh as a result of the project downsizing that you identified tonight, you testified that you're gonna need fewer generators.

Is that accurate?

Fewer generators and fewer fewer HVAC units, yes.

So we heard from residents over the last several months as well as during the PCC hearings, um, concerns regarding emissions.

And that you mentioned that there's an air mod uh modeling study that we do not have at this point.

We coming out, we when we were at PCC, we presented a air permitting expert.

The air permitting experts spoke to the Clean Air Act and the regulatory framework by which the US EPA and the IEPA would regulate emissions on a facility like this.

There's a major source permit for large scale permitters through the US EPA.

Um, if it doesn't meet thresholds, it defaults to the IEPA.

Um there's a major source and a minor source at IEPA.

Um we would qualify as a minor source as a minor source in this region.

We would not be required to do any air modeling.

So we had when we were going through and putting together our case for this project, um, we looked at the Ellinoi Environmental Protection Agency as the expert agency with respect to air permitting.

We looked at the requirements, and we were we were operating, we were guided towards meeting their requirements, which we did through this process and was made clear by the record at Plan Commission.

Coming out of the plan commission, we had a you we had an eight to one vote um finding in our favor.

Um Greg and I got together and said, listen, there's a lot of there's a lot of fear surrounding this issue of emissions, and I think we we both think it's unfounded based on the discussions that we had had with our permitting experts.

Um we decided at that point in time to go out and look for proposals to do air modeling, uh it's air dispersion modeling, and so the the thought process is if we had a major source permit, the IEPA would require us to do the scope of work.

They would say, we want you to program in um in a in a regulatory framework.

We want you to program in the inputs, um, the diesel engines that are the emitting source.

We want you to establish what is the what are the atmospheric conditions in this area.

Um we want you to look at the worst case conditions based on anticipated operations of this facility, and we want you to show us what is the what is the impact.

And the reason you do that is like I said during my closing remarks, that in order to establish a hazard, there has to be exposure.

There is nothing on exposure in the record today.

We believe that the exposure, well, I I shouldn't say that.

We we we testified that the exposure is so small that the IEPA would not uh would not require air modeling.

We've we sought, we came before you tonight.

Uh having personally done hundreds of cases before this council, and knowing that this council has a long history of thoughtful consideration of zoning cases, particularly ones that are controversial.

I think back to Polo Club.

I think I think back to Naper Commons for God's sakes, and the amount of time we spent to go through all of the details of those cases.

This council took countless hours, devoted the time, put in the effort to understand, and they allowed us to go to to take the time necessary to produce all of the information necessary for you to make a final decision.

That's what we asked you to do tonight.

Allow us to do the air dispersion modeling that is going to tell you what is going to be uh what is going to be the impact because with the air dispersion modeling, you will see the components of this of diesel exhaust that residents have talked about, but then you will actually understand the exposure because we would produce a study for you that would show these are the levels of constituent components of diesel exhaust at, for example, the property line.

At that point in time, the city council would be prepared to make a decision from my perspective.

And would that study be based upon what generation uh is being proposed tonight, or is it gonna be on the original presentation?

It would be based on the generation that's proposed tonight.

When we started the study coming out of plan commission, we believed we had the capacity to build a 36 megawatt IT facility.

That's no longer the case.

Because as a result of negotiations with the city's legal team, we ended up curtailing the size of the facility.

The entire study had to be re-racked.

We've spent tens of thousands of dollars on the study and would like the opportunity to present that to council.

So the ongoing negotiations with the city team prevented the study from being ready for today.

Is that the what you're saying?

The the negotiations with the city's legal team caused us to reduce the scale of the facility.

By reducing the scale of the facility, it changed the inputs for that air dispersion modeling.

We were no longer modeling 24 diesel engines.

We would be modeling uh there would be 16 diesel engines on site, 12 of which would be required for backup generation.

Counselor, were you involved in in those negotiations?

Can you confirm what the petitioner is saying?

Is that accurate?

Uh we were involved in the negotiations and we did discuss the 36 megawatt peak cap that was introduced, which was new information to the petitioner post-PCC, yes.

So that potentially gives merit to what the petitioner is saying that they're they their study had to be changed.

And that's why we might not have it.

I'm not sure about that.

That's that's the petitioner's representation.

I'm not sure the accuracy of it, but I do know that we um discussed the difference of opinion as to what the PCC considered, and and the petitioner ultimately agreed to a 36 megawatt peak cap, which they represented was different than what they expected to be able to achieve coming out of PCC.

Okay.

Uh Mr.

Whittaker significant change, if my notes are correct here, I I wrote down from 244,000 square feet to 145,000 square feet.

Is that accurate?

Correct.

From 24 to 12 gen sets.

With uh two uh uh was it two or four additional like standbys in the I I believe that I believe the final count would be 16 total generators, 12 of which would be required to provide backup operations.

So there are four backup generators that are backups to the backups.

They would not be operated in the case of an emergency.

We would this new layout or reduce layout or or whatever um is it possible to further adjust your location of the equipment or the layout of the building or screening or mitigation or anything that would potentially um address the concerns of the residents.

I I haven't I I have I've offered to to speak to residents through um some council members.

I've not had the opportunity to directly engage with residents.

Um it's my understanding that some of the residents were not interested in that.

Um so I I would be hard pressed to tell you what would satisfy their concerns.

I can tell you by way of example, the city of Yorkville has adopted um standards for data centers that are some of the most comprehensive in the region.

Uh the setback requirement for a data center in the city of Yorkville is 500 feet.

Um we would be in excess of 500 feet with the proposed two residential um structures with the proposed with the revised proposal coming um under the OAA.

But if the building is shrunk and the gen set yard is shrunk, that affects the distances and the other things.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

All right.

And is I understand it we the the um I believe was was the Hefner study the the noise study?

Am I referring to the correct study for the noise study?

Say it one more time.

The Hefner?

Oh, Jacob and Hefner, yes, that is correct.

The noise that was commissioned by the city for this project.

Um with the reduction in gen sets, and now that you're you're talking about a maximum of of um 12 under normal circumstances operating.

What is gonna be the the impact of that study?

Is this is the study now no good, or does it need to be redone or is it flawed, or is it going to be reduced, or or what can you speak to with regard to the change in the amount of gen sets based upon what we studied as the original proposal?

The the primary component of noise generation under the uh under the Jacob and Hefner noise impact assessment is the cooling units.

And so we would be reducing the number of cooling units from 24 to 16 with the reduction in scale.

Um it stands to reason that we would then also re-rack the noise impact study um to reflect the the fewer number of gen sets um because with fewer running, I'm sorry, with with fewer running cooling units, the output of sound from the uh facility would decrease.

Okay.

And when would that be available?

We would be we we would be happy to produce updated uh information for uh a late the second meeting in February.

Okay.

All right.

Um I don't see any other questions from council members.

Any other questions?

All right.

Well, council, I have I'm sorry, Councilman Kelly.

I was just gonna make a con no question, but just a comment of about the conversation that was just had, and and I'll say I appreciate the proposed downsizing.

I've got concern about the conversation I just heard for a few different reasons.

Um of which is that we don't have that what was just discussed, we don't have in front of us tonight.

We've got an owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement that doesn't have those changes.

And two, that's not what the planning and zoning commission considered when they put together the the case really that we have to consider.

So um so those are two concerns.

A third concern is you know, we we put in a I'll just say for myself, put in a significant amount of time, certainly uh studying the case, studying the evidence and the the planning and zoning commission uh evidence that that came to us to come up with my conclusions that I that I stated on the record.

I don't think I see those conclusions changing based on the size.

Um so I I just really hesitate to see how that uh would impact one way or the other the decision on what's before us tonight.

But I think you were starting to say something mayor, so I apologize to cut you off there.

No, I I I think it's uh the information on a topic as controversial as this to have as much information in front of the city council for us to weigh a decision that is likely uh gonna have some litigation involved and everything else, I think is extremely important.

And and and my point and and in uh asking when that information is available, quite frankly, um I never intended that uh or thought we'd be voting this through tonight on this type of issue.

So I would make a motion to continue and and table this particular issue until such time council has the additional information so we can make a in well-informed decision and continue it to February 17th.

Is there a second?

So I got we have motion and a second, any questions?

Are you asking question glass?

Uh a question for our city attorney.

I I'm curious, and you may not know the answer, but just to give some context to it.

Um if we got additional information on the proposal that's in front of us tonight and the agenda item, would we technically be able to consider that information at this point in time without the residents having a time to consider and cross-examine any report or expert witness?

Counselor?

I think that's something that would take some legal analysis, and we have to provide council some guidance on that.

It may be a matter that would have to be or maybe perhaps could be remanded to the PZC to reopen the public hearing and consider any new evidence.

Uh alternatively, anything can be shared as it was tonight.

Ultimately, the important factor is that the council is basing its decision on uh the planning and zoning commission public hearing record to support the criteria.

All right, thank you.

I guess maybe I just need some clarification regarding what exactly you envision your motion accomplishing, Mayor.

I I will say for what's in front of us tonight, I I'm personally prepared to vote on it.

It almost sounds like it's a new proposal that's coming up in the meeting tonight.

And that may be the petitioner's prerogative to do that.

I don't know if they have something different than what we have tonight.

But I think that's a tricky question.

I'm not sure how that would really even work.

And I don't know if our city attorney has thoughts on that, or mayor, if you have a thought of how you see the proceeding.

Um but it's a it might be a more difficult question than it first appears.

Well, I I believe there's certainly relevant information that apparently was uh potentially obstructed from us having tonight because of negotiations with city staff.

That's a great possibility.

That's it's uh I I think something that regardless of um uh uh what our process is, it's important to have as much information as we possibly can in our hands to make a well-informed decision.

And that could sway council members to continue to vote.

No, it could sway council members to vote in the affirmative.

But I think making sure we have as much information in front of us, that's our duty to do and have.

So that's my position on it.

Councilman Hauser or I'm sorry, Councilman White.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um from what I was listening to on the dias.

I mean, even with the proposals that was just being discussed, uh I I don't really see at least from a condition uh the master plan discussion that several people said uh how that even affects that um as well as um just the housing the property values as I discussed earlier.

Um to me is this seems like a really an entirely new proposal.

Um I'm ready to vote on it, and and it's in a question for the our attorney.

Can they still go get more evidence, do what they want to do and bring this back?

Is it 62 days if they want to come back to uh council for another big stare petitioner's prerogative?

Are you asking if council were to deny the petition tonight?

What options would the petitioner have?

Yes.

I think the petitioner would have the option to revise its plan and start over with PZC.

They can submit a new petition and go through the process again if that was something that they were interested to, especially if it's a revised proposal.

Um that would be an option.

All right, that's what I got.

Thank you.

Council Balzer.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I mean, no surprise here.

I'm obviously going to oppose this.

I've described this as contrived, and I think that's borne out in the record.

Um I mean, uh you're all are here, you can see it.

Um would also add if we if this council to my surprise somehow decided to prolong this, I think that would be fraught with legal peril.

You need to look no further than the Meyer case to see what happens if you introduce totally new um factors that weren't considered by PCC.

Um so you know, legal risk goes the other way too.

Um, I'm not going to put the city in legal jeopardy like that by coming up with some last minute uh you know contrived plot to drag this out.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

It's for what it's worth.

When I had conversations with uh some of my colleagues up here, I I didn't think we would vote for a vote on it tonight.

Um, you know, there's 15 hours of PCC meetings, it's a hugely controversial topic.

It's a big development, and we get an agenda on a Wednesday with 35 items attached and 126-page OAA.

I thought the reasonable thing would be that it would be continued.

And so, but that that was just my position, and I I am very sensitive to the legal sensitivities around this.

And if the vote's gonna go the same way anyway, fine, but I don't want to look like we had a pre-um arranged vote and and it was rushed, and um, I think there's risk there.

So, but that was just that was my position.

I I mentioned it to you guys.

But if you guys want to push vote tonight, push vote tonight.

Councilwoman Jean.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um prior to uh the holiday break, uh councilwoman um Gibson and myself were told that a dispersion um air model study was underway and that we would receive that before the January 20th um meeting, which we never received.

So it that was understood long before, and to my knowledge, that study wasn't brought up with um with our with our attorney at any point.

So this notion of it coming today is a little bit concerning.

Um and I I from a process perspective, what would need to be triggered in order for this to be remanded to PCC, um what would that bar be?

Um I'm not sure if our city I think if it was considered new evidence, it would require a remand of PCC to reopen the public hearing and have it be vetted at that level.

You know, it's hard to say without having the evidence in front of us and understanding exactly what's being proposed as a new idea, but that's something that we'd have to analyze and make a recommendation that it would come back to council, then council would have to make the decision to remand it if that were appropriate if they really wanted to consider something that was technically new evidence.

Yeah, thank you.

Because uh through the process, as we were deliberating individually, um there were questions that arose that we would ask staff about, and we're continuously told you need to look at the evidence that was presented in PCC, and then maybe the OAA, right?

Now that's your scope of your evidence that we are using to make our determination, but now it just seems like it's it's moving.

And and that's you know, that that seems that seems um not fair in the sense that when does it end then?

You know, it it's it could it could continually be changed, and uh when do when are we able to really um make a decisive uh vote on it?

And so I I have really strong concerns in presenting new material at this moment um and um have yeah, just real strong concerns about that.

Council Watson.

Thank you.

Um I don't know, maybe it's me being dense, but I I wouldn't consider I don't consider this to be completely new.

I I view it as a being what it was, but at a smaller scale.

I think something new would be something like where a petitioner goes from I don't know, a 300 unit apartment complex to a hundred single family homes.

That that would be completely new, but the what what we've what we're saying here is what existed at a reduced scale.

So um that just my opinion on that.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to continue the matter to the February 17th meeting roll call.

White no Wilson, yes, Warterley, yes, Gibson, no Holtzauer?

No, Jane, no Kelly, no, no, McBroom?

Yes, Sayed, no.

Motion fails 63.

Councilman White might Councilman White may have a motion.

Mayor move to deny the request for approval of a conditional use for data center variances for parking and equipment screening, wall height, and an owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for the property located at 1960 Lucent Lane Kerr's critical data center.

Can I ask a point of order, Mayor?

Council and Alzar.

Um I guess I'll sorry.

We were you making a second?

Sure, I'll make a second.

I actually had a point of order.

You got the second now a question for um it's late at night, and I really want to make sure I heard that right.

Um so you know, many people have asked for a no vote.

The way that was phrased, I I think you made a motion to deny.

So if I heard that correctly, and I means I'm voting against the proposal, is that correct?

Counselor DeSanto, is that correct?

Counselor, yeah.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, the motion was to deny the request uh for a conditional use for a data center variance as I stated in the agenda.

I think we'll vote yes, is to deny the request.

Thank you.

Thank you for the um that grace, Mayor.

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Um just for the record, I I I think this is a unique moment in our economic development history.

I I can't recall another zoning matter where the council um or the petitioner um or members of the council have asked for additional time and uh information, and then we've been told no.

So I believe um it's appropriate for this council to put the work in to hear everything on a case, especially of this uh magnitude.

And I think that's what it means when you meet with dozens of residents on all sides of an issue, is that we have to get as much information as we possibly can, and it's not necessarily about taking a vote of convenience where it's all done in one night as much as it is as making sure we have everything we need to make a discussion or decision.

I mean, we do take two meetings to decide whether or not to put a stop sign in.

We're making a decision on a half billion plus dollar investment in our city, and I think it's important that we uh hear all that information.

So uh I appreciate and fully respect my my fellow members of the council.

I was uh rejected by a majority vote for continuing the matter, and I uh in this vote, I I do not believe I am prepared to take a vote.

I'm going to be abstaining because the record I believe is incomplete.

Councilman White, do you have a question?

Yeah, I question.

I guess we're I mean, as we go through this process, we we we understand what we're what we're doing, what we were informed that we can do based on what was presented at PCC.

I I don't see by by going back, considering new evidence, is and then it potentially it sounds to me would have to go back through PZC.

Uh I I just don't think that's I don't just don't I just think it's somewhat disingenuous for us to do it that way.

And if uh the petitioner still has the ability to still do what he wants to do, get new evidence, go back through the process.

He has that right, and we can start the whole process if that's what they want to do.

But based off of what we've been presented here, um I I don't see really an issue why we should have to wait and get more evidence.

This could as councilwoman something that Jane said, it's gonna continue forever.

Uh so I I'm ready to vote, and uh if it doesn't pass, by all means, as I said, uh if they want to continue with that process and and and revise their plan and do it again and come back at the appropriate times, by all means they have every right to do so.

So that's where I am with it.

We have a motion and a second roll call.

Wilson Abstain.

Morley.

Abstain.

Gibson?

Aye.

Holzhour?

I Jane?

Aye, Kelly.

I mick broom, no.

Syed.

Aye.

White?

Aye.

Motion carries six one with two abstentions.

All right.

New business.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh totally different topic.

So just want to bring something up a new business that's been on my mind for quite a while.

And uh we heard a couple uh comments in public forum and throughout the data center discussion about affordability.

Um and in a new year here, it's a topic that I would like to address, which is affordable housing, something we've been working on for six or seven years now, probably, and have not been able to take a vote on a policy for the city to move forward.

Um in light of the status center conversation, it's been difficult to really figure out exactly how council might want to proceed with one-on-one conversations.

Um so I think what I would like to ask city staff to do in the relatively near term, if possible, would be to bring back a report to the council regarding the most recent efforts uh that we had pursued on affordable housing to include the AHIP program and a potential inclusionary zoning ordinance.

Uh and if you could bring that back to us in the near-term future for council to then give some direction to city staff on if and how we would like to move forward with either of those programs.

So I would ask for a show of hands to see if there's support to uh ask staff to prepare that report.

Everybody here, Councilman Kelly, okay?

Okay.

Show of hands in support of councilman Kelly's request.

One, two, three, four, five, six, plenty of hands.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

Any other new business?

May I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

All those in favor?

Second.

All those in favor sign aye.