Good evening and welcome to the March 3rd Naperville City Council meeting, roll call.

Rurally?

Here.

Gibson.

Here.

Hold tower.

Here.

Jane.

Here.

Kelly.

Here.

McBroom?

Here.

Syed.

Yep.

White.

Here.

Wilson.

Here.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Under Indivisible Liberty and Justice Raw.

Our first item tonight 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 be staying 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's no cheering and no juring.

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

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

No speakers should feel intimidated by the crowd.

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

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

And speakers are given three minutes to address the city council.

To help speakers stay within the three-minute time frame, we have a side timer or a timer located on the side dias to your right.

It will give the visual cue when three minutes are expiring.

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

The timer will buzz when it hit zero, and we will alert the timer or at least alert the speaker that the time is up.

If a speaker's name is called and they are not in the room, we will move on to the next speaker, and we will not go back.

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

We have two written comments that were submitted to the website and posted under today's meeting.

And if you heard your name called, please come to the front row and sit behind the podium there.

I'm an owner of a townhouse in the 60-unit 25-year-old vintage club neighborhood, located less than 60 seconds drive from the proposed Atlas apartments development.

That study focused primarily on Audrey Avenue and a few other major roadways connected to it.

Lakeley Lane leads to other 25 mile per hour residential side streets that pass through Vintage Club, Mayfair, and past dozens of other single family homes.

People that know this area know that by using our side streets, you can avoid backups at nearby busy intersections.

They use these shortcuts through our neighborhood to move between major roads such as Ogden Avenue, Route 59, and 75th Street.

As it is, we have a lot of non-resident traffic passing through our side streets to save time, often driving too fast.

During warmer weather, these fast-moving cars are sharing our streets with children on bikes and scooters, as well as pedestrians crossing the street.

The hundreds of future vehicles that would be nearby at the Atlas would mean that we see an increase of hundreds of additional cars, many traveling too fast, flooding our residential side streets every day while taking shortcuts.

This is going to increase the odds that eventually we see an accident involving a child on a bicycle or a pedestrian.

Shortly after we moved into Vintage Club five years ago, our dog was hit and killed by a speeding driver on Blakeley Lane.

Every benefit of this development will be forgotten and publicly criticized if one of our hundreds of children in the nearby neighborhood is tragically hit by a vehicle in the future that came from the Atlas apartments.

I want to be clear that I am not opposed to a multifamily apartment development being built there, but I am opposed to one that is five stories too tall, taller than any other structure for miles around, is too dense for a residential setting, and that would have significant safety impact on our neighborhood streets.

I would propose that the city and zoning commission instead approve rezoning for a medium-density apartment complex of three stories height versus what is currently planned for an overly dense complex, the Atlas.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Diana Torres Hawkin.

Good evening.

My name is Diana Torres Hawkins, and I am the founder and vice president of Almas, Alliance of Latinos Motivating Action in the Suburbs.

I am also a resident of Naperville.

Due to recent commentary from City Council discussions, I am here once again to clarify the public record.

Almas previously addressed this issue in October 2025.

Almas is a registered 501c3 nonprofit organization.

Almas does not endorse candidates.

Almas does not donate to campaigns.

Almas does not support political parties.

By law and practice, Almas is nonpartisan.

Our mission is centered on cultural enrichment, youth leadership, development, and civic empowerment.

Like many nonprofits, we engage in nonpartisan issue advocacy when matters directly affect the safety and well-being of the community we serve.

There's a clear legal distinction between partisan political activity and issue-based civic engagement.

Encouraging residents to understand their rights or participate in civic life is not campaigning.

It is community education.

Elected officials hold a responsibility to ensure that public statements accurately reflect the facts.

When questions arise, we're always willing to provide documentation and clarity that strengthens public trust.

What's difficult and concerning is the repeated public characterization of our organization as partisan when the documented record does not support that claim, especially when it comes from this dais.

We welcome transparency.

We welcome accountability.

We welcome objective, standardized criteria applied equally to all SICA recipients.

The SECA funds we receive support specific approved cultural programming, most notably the Eden Muertos at the Riverwalk, a free family-centered celebration that brings together thousands of attendees to Neighborville.

SECA funds are used solely for event-related expenses, and every dollar and cent is documented in our required SICA reporting.

Our partnership spans schools, businesses, faith institutions, and civic organizations throughout the city.

Public officials, like many community leaders, regularly attend cultural events in service to their constituents.

Their presence does not constitute endorsement, nor does it transform cultural programming into political activity.

Almas remains committed to building belonging, supporting youth, and strengthening the cultural and civic fabric of Naperville for all residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Richard Stark, followed by John Doyle and Bruce Jones.

My name is Richard Stark, and I've been a resident of Naperville for six and a half years.

During that time, I've seen many examples of exceptional performance within our council manager form of government.

There's a reason why Naperville has such a strong reputation.

I've also identified one important opportunity for improvement.

I've closely followed the electricity contract discussions for the past 15 months.

And throughout that process, I observed that no electricity vision, decision criteria, targets, or benchmarks were used to evaluate proposed options.

These elements are essential components of any well-formed strategy.

The good news is that my partner, Mike Milano, and I have developed a practical solution that can be started soon.

Our proposal includes two workshops supported by videos, audios, reference documents, and some individual Zoom meetings with council members.

The goal is to develop the bit to develop the vision statement, decision criteria, targets, and benchmarks that will be used to guide the public electric utility department to identify near term and future options that best meet our needs.

The primary reason for doing this now is that it will enable Brian Growth to evaluate options that can improve performance within the next few years, especially to address potential reliability issues in the Comed zone.

This is an opportunity for you to take the initiative and help Naperville City Council reach an accepted exceptionally high level of strategic leadership.

Years from now, when you reflect on your service, you'll be able to point to your role tonight as one of the most meaningful contributions you made.

You can start by initiating or supporting a new business proposal to put this on the next agenda.

Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is John Doyle, followed by Bruce Jones, Ashley Pennick, and Julie Carducci.

Yeah, thank thank you.

My name is John Doyle, Naperville resident, and uh tonight's not going to be about anything utility related, so no worries there.

Uh I do want to talk about House Bill 2454 and the city's opposition to it, though.

If you're unfamiliar, HB 2454 is pretty straightforward.

It's looking to amend the tort immunity act to ensure that cyclists are recognized as intended users of roadways where they're legally allowed to operate.

Right now, Illinois is the only state in the country that draws a distinction between permitted road users and intended road users.

This distinction allows municipalities to avoid liability when poorly maintained roads leads to injuries for cyclists.

The bill is hoping to close that loophole.

Now I understand the city filed its witness slip against this bill uh in consistency with the legislative priorities that the council voted on last year, uh specifically the guiding principle of opposing legislation that increases liability.

I'm not trying to challenge that general framework, but I would like to ask that the council take a closer look at this bill in particular and potentially reconsider the city's position.

This bill was introduced and sponsored by Representative Hirschhauer and its chief co-sponsor is Representative Yang Rohr, both of whom represent Naperville, and it just seems very counterproductive to me to have two of our state representatives pushing for a bill while having our city government simultaneously oppose that same bill.

The city's opposition also seems to be out of alignment with the ongoing work done with the updates to the bicycle and pedestrian plan, which is explicitly trying to make bicycling safer in Naperville.

So for those reasons, I am requesting that the council consider withdrawing the city's current witness slip.

That's an opposition of House Bill 2454 until the city can discuss it formally at a at a council meeting and allow for public comment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Bruce Jones, followed by Ashley Penick and Julie Carducci.

Hello.

Bruce Jones, 40-year resident of Naperville.

Here to make a recommendation for the commercial business ordinances that Naperville is updating right now and will soon be completing the ask.

The commercial businesses for commercial businesses, we should add the following type of language to the commercial ordinances.

During initial construction or renovation of commercial garages and parking lots, add the infrastructure for electric vehicle charging stations while the ground is dug up and the facilities are under construction.

This means include sufficient electrical capacity in the breaker panel and install electrical conduit from the panel to the parking area.

And this lays the groundwork unintended to install charging stations by just pulling wires through the existing conduit and making electrical connections.

Research shows electric vehicles are steadily prices are steadily declining.

And in the next year or so, the average purchase price of an electric vehicle will be the same or lower than a gas car in the mid to upper 30,000 range.

EVs are already less expensive to fuel and maintain.

So as their purchase price continues to drop over the next 10 years, they'll be even more affordable to lower income drivers.

So who benefits from this ordinance and workplace charging?

Employees is the first group, especially low to middle income workers employed in Naperville, but living in multifamily housing and apartments that don't have charging stations.

If you can't charge at home, where's the next logical place to charge?

At work, where the car is parked for hours.

So they'll be attracted to jobs that offer workplace charging.

Second group, building owners and employers benefit.

Naperville businesses with charging stations will attract and retain employees, building stronger businesses.

It makes so much sense to install the electric capacity and conduit while the parking area is under construction.

For a small cost up front to do this, it saves the building owner thousands of dollars later when installing chargers by leveraging existing conduit in the walls and ground, as opposed to paying for costly trenching, drilling, and re-landscaping later.

And the Naperville electric utility benefits.

Naperville and the IMEA even promote the installation of charging stations through a $500 credit for each charging station installed.

Just join the renewable energy program and install the units.

They want more EV charging.

So I have helped over 20 city and county governments, including King County, update their ordinances with such language.

Please support this.

This is something we really need to do, and I'd be happy to assist.

Right now, for the commercial ordinances, if we don't push the envelope, it'll remain stationary.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Ashley Pennick, followed by Julie Carducci.

Stretched codes is an issue that was brought up last city council meeting.

The discussion of affordable housing.

I have some questions to pose about affordable housing.

It is true that it is expensive to live in Naperville.

The median house cost in the city of Napalville is approximately $580,000.

The median house coast in the United States is approximately 410 to 440,000.

Let's do some basic math.

Let's say a builder is building a house at a cost of $300,000.

Then all of a sudden, a new regulation, some type of energy efficiency regulation is made into law.

What that means to the builder is that an added expense that has to be incurred into the budget.

What does that mean to the estimate for the person who is buying the house?

The person who is purchasing the house will more than likely have to put more money in, and how will they get it?

Through a loan.

This makes housing more expensive.

Many of the regulations that are sent forth are supposed to be economically efficient, environmentally.

When not enough research is done for this to be made known.

Doesn't everybody want clean air in water?

But what if these stretch codes have some type of environmental impact that could mess up water, soil, and air?

Prove me wrong, but isn't that something that we would want to avoid?

Think about it.

When we put all the salt out in the winter, it makes it so the streets are not as slippery.

That goes directly into our water supply.

At least where I live, I try to take much of the salt out and put it into a bucket because there is too much salt.

Is that healthy?

All the salt going into the water.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final speaker is Julie Carducci.

Good evening.

My name is Julie Carducci, and I'm a resident on Franklin Avenue.

Immediately adjacent to the Benton and Maine Townhome development.

I am here to request that council members make a motion to reconsider the February 17th approval, not because we oppose development, but because the approval cannot be reconciled with the city's own municipal code, its conditional use requirements, and the land use master plan.

The council cited major uh master plan's flexibility provisions to justify enormous variances.

But flexibility is not a blank check.

The master plan states it will not alter or change the existing zoning laws.

And it equally requires compatibility with adjacent uses.

This project proposes 3,100 square feet per unit, whereas transitional use zoning requires six thousand six thousand square feet duplexes.

That's about half the required density.

That's not a minor variance, but a fundamental departure from TU zoning laws.

And to grant a conditional use permit, the city must find the project will not be injurious to the neighboring property.

The testimony of all nine immediate neighbors regarding noise, loss of light, loss of privacy, and dangerous traffic makes that finding impossible to support.

The KARAS data center was rejected because the developer could not demonstrate the project would not harm surrounding properties.

That is the correct application of the conditional use standard.

Approving Benton and Maine townhomes with nine neighbors testifying to substantial harms in an inconsistent is an inconsistent application of the same rule.

We recognize CARIS was a different land use, but the conditional use standard was identical.

That standard was not met here, regardless of land use type.

This inconsistency is precisely the kind of arbitrary and capricious decision making that courts in Illinois have overturned.

We also asked the council to revisit the two required planned unit development public amenities approved by staff.

The substitutes accepted were a private driveway with permeable pavers and four-inch caliper saplings, replacing full-grown parkway trees that developer is removing.

On what basis does a private driveway qualify as a public amenity?

And on what basis do small replacement saplings qualify as a public amenity.

The neighboring residents submitted a written request for reconsideration last Friday, and I'm here tonight to respectfully echo that request in person.

We urge the council members to make a motion to reconsider.

We are not asking for special treatment.

We are asking for the city to apply its own rules consistently and in good faith.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is city council public forum.

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

Speaking to Mr.

Stark's comments from earlier.

Much sooner than we may even be anticipating right now.

Under new business, at the end of this meeting, I'll be asking council to direct our professional staff to develop a critical path timeline tied to our current IAMEA contract, which expires in 2035.

So we will know the firm decision points this city must meet to protect affordable, reliable power at the lowest risk to our customers.

We cannot afford to drift through this process.

We need a clear roadmap that identifies the drop dead dates for evaluating IMEA, advancing alternatives, reviewing transmission and capacity risks, and understanding when delays start to cost us leverage options and ultimately money.

It's a real threat that could affect whether IMEA remains a viable option at all.

And that's exactly why we should be preserving options, not narrowing them too early.

So my request is straightforward.

Let's direct our professional staff to bring back a timeline that clearly shows when decisions must be made so this council can act responsibly, deliberately, and on time.

That is the kind of careful, responsible stewardship our residents deserve from all of us here at the DIS.

Councilman Holzor.

Thank you, Mayor.

I concur in part with uh what the mayor just said, but dissent in part.

So looking at the meeting minutes of June 3rd, 2025.

Um, I'm gonna actually read the motion verbatim.

It says, quote, a motion was made by Councilman Holthower, seconded by Councilman Kelly to schedule a series of workshops on the long-term energy options for the city of Naperville with a focus on strategic objectives and excluding tactical decisions on a specific contract.

Um unfortunately, the workshop that we got was the opposite.

It was focused on one provider, one contract option, no strategic objectives.

The result of that was the waste of um the many months between March and uh June of this year.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over and expecting a different result.

So I will be offering as an alternative a proposal to do what we said we were gonna do last June and actually follow through on it.

With regard to Mr.

Doyle's uh comments, um I would actually like to learn a little more from city staff.

Mr.

Krieger, could you share uh a little bit about what the city is telling the state and why we're opposing our state legislatures with legislators on this bill?

Mr.

Krieger could ask Mr.

Krieger, you want to start?

You know, yeah, yeah, that's fine.

Um House Bill uh 252454.

Um, you know, it uh it does uh make bicycle riders uh intended users of any roadway or portion of roadway uh that they're legally permitted to um ride um because uh it will uh increase um uh liability and risk and cost uh for the city.

Um that is the main reason that we are opposing.

Um, I I don't believe that it um stands in contrast to the work that's being done by our bicycle pedestrian advisory committee because you know they're those efforts of making the city more bikeable and more safe are will continue and I I think are not impacted uh by House Bill 2454.

The real reason is just kind of the increased liability risk.

Can you state as you understand it the reason that the supporters of the House bill are supporting it?

I cannot.

Okay, well, I I find that problematic.

So I would ask that at the next council meeting, you could talk to our two state reps that are backing this, ask them why they're supported and see if their reasons are logical.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilman White.

Thank you.

Um, I would wanted to echo that uh also with Mr.

Stark's uh presented as well.

I I think we um, as Councilman Holzhauer said, it proposed to do this earlier last year.

Um I think that's something we should do.

I understand where you're coming from, also, Mayor.

Uh I think initially we need to just we need to establish what our vision for the city is going to be when it comes to uh um electricity uh to start formulate those strategies.

And I think once that has been established and it should be council led um from a vision standpoint.

We can start putting some milestones and things together if it makes sense.

I think we're kind of getting to the you know more that the tactical piece of this before we get to the uh strategic piece of it.

Um so um I would agree with that.

I think we need to scale it back a little bit, get the basic vision down, and then we can um we can kind of go from there.

That would be my uh proposal with what you uh had uh proposed, uh Mayor.

Thank you.

Okay, our next item is a consent agenda.

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

I move to use the omnibus bet to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman Kelly, second Kelly.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye opposed, motion passes nine zero.

May have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly, Mrs.

Schatz, please read the consent agenda.

Approval of the regular city council meeting minutes of February 17th, 2026.

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

Approval of an appointment to the financial advisory board, approval of the award of the RFP for Fox River Commons retaining wall improvements, engineering services to Larson Engineering for an amount not to exceed 129,590 for a 12-month term.

Approval of the award of the RFP for real-time information center software to peregreen for an amount to exceed 556,400 for a three-year term.

Approval of the award of option year one to the contract for sanitaries to our mainline cleaning to hair construction for an amount not to exceed 343,223.

Approval of the award of option year number two to the contract for electrical installation, maintenance, and modifications and repairs to Volts Electric for an amount not to exceed 137,963 for one year term.

Approval of the award of option year number two to the contract for generator maintenance services to Midwest Power Industry for an amount not to exceed 125,000 dollars for one year term.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for electric utility GIS service to Xerox IT solution for the amount not to exceed 539,000 dollars and eighty cents.

Approval of the award of single source procurement for electric utility furniture to Conklin office services for an amount not to exceed 171,240 and 12 cents.

Approval of the award of the work order for construction engineering services, Maple Brook phase two water main improvements to Crawford Murphy and Tilly for an amount not to exceed 181,800 for a 16-month term.

Approval of the award of the work order for construction engineering services, King's Terrace water main improvements to fair grain for fair gram for an amount not to exceed 201,000 for a 16-month term.

Approval of the award of the work order for construction engineering services, saybrook phase three water main improvements to fairgram for an amount not to exceed 201,000 for a 16-month term.

Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for Springbrook Water Reclamation, Influent Pump Station and South Plant Force Main Improvement Project to CDM Smith for an amount not to exceed $99,000 and an additional 580 calendar days.

Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for Trillium Lift Station Rehabilitation Design to Siorba Group for an amount not to for an additional 365 days.

Waiving the applicable provisions of the Naperville Procurement Code and awarding the procurement for concrete in-house restoration program to prairie materials, Ozinga and Kendall County Concrete for an amount not to exceed $60,000 and for a one-year term.

Waiving the applicable provision of the Naperville Procurement Code Code and awarding the procurement for Hot Mix Asphalt to Builders Asphalt, Chicago Materials Corporation, PT Ferry Faroe Asph, RW Dunaman, and Superior Asphalt Materials for an amount not to exceed $95,000 for one year term.

Waiting the first reading and passing the ordinance amending the Class G2 boutique market liquor license in section 3-3-11-2 of the Naperville Municipal Code by extending on-premises consumption of Kubernetes wine and draft the year to a contiguous outdoor patio connected to the grocery store by an exterior doorway.

Passing the ordinance granting a variance for a garage addition at 693 Cottage Avenue.

Passing the ordinance approving a one-year extension to the effective period of ordinance 24-82 regarding a variance to allow accessory structures to exceed permissible rear yard lot coverage on the property located at 923 Watercrest Drive.

Passing the ordinance approving a minor change to the Iroquois Center PUD and a final flat of PUD for the property located at 1163 East Ogden Avenue and adopting the resolution approving prior approving prior unapproved closed session meeting minutes, designating certain closed session meeting minutes as non-restricted and continuing to maintain the confidentiality of all other restricted closed session meeting minutes.

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

Roll call.

Orly.

Yes.

Gibson.

I hold tower.

I Jane.

I Kelly.

I McBroom.

I cyan.

I White.

I Wilson.

All right.

M1, Councilman White.

Mayor move to approve the award of cooperative procurement 26-066 2026 water main lining to form for an amount not to exceed $1,012,941 for a 16-month term.

Council Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M1 roll call.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holtz Hour.

I.

Jane.

I Kelly.

McBroom.

I cyan.

I White.

I Wilson.

Warley.

Yes.

Motion passes 90.

Councilman White, M2.

I move to approve the award of option year number three to contract 23-16 sanitary sewer service lateral lining and VACA T installation to performance pipelining incorporate it for an amount not to exceed $1,862,676 plus a 3% contingency.

Councilman.

Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and the second on M2 roll call.

Hold tower.

I Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

I McBroom.

Aye.

Cyan.

I White.

I.

Wilson.

Wardley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Motion passes 90.

Our final item tonight is new businesses.

Reminder, new business is for items.

This council's asking staff to bring back on a future agenda or for motions to reconsider past city council votes.

New business items.

Uh I'm going to offer up the new business item I spoke of in public forum, and that would be to uh direct our professional staff to develop a critical path timeline tied to our current IMEA contract, which expires in 2035.

And basically is a backdater, so we know when we have to make the critical decisions going forward.

And I think that would be a requirement regardless of public hearings or workshops or anything else.

We we need to know these dates, and we need to know when they are drop dead dates.

A point of order.

Mayor, we were told that March 31st of last year was a drop dead date.

What are these new drop dead dates we're talking about?

I I think there's there's concerns about the pseudo tie.

Well, we were then told August was the drop dead date.

I mean, I at what point does a drop-dead date actually mean anything?

It sounds like an agreement.

I think the guidance of our professional staff on what these dates, what dates matter do have an influence on how this council should vote and should be taken seriously.

So if we want to disagree, or if you as a councilman want to disagree with our professional staff who's advising us, we should be making decisions based upon this.

Well, I just disagree that we're not gonna have an argument, councilman, you're out of order, first of all.

Okay, I haven't recognized you to speak.

Okay.

So is there hands in the air to support what I'm putting up?

All those in favor signify putting your hands in the air.

Councilman Kelly, do you have a question?

Uh questionslash comment on what you're proposing.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'm not necessarily against what you're asking for.

I I would actually like to see some rough dates from staff because I feel like I've heard differing dates from staff at different points and at different meetings.

So I would um I would sort of like to have a uh definitive written um set of dates from staff and to councilman Holzhauer's point, it may or may not be what everybody thinks is correct.

I think it might work in conjunction with what Councilman Holzhauer talked about.

So I guess I uh I'm a little bit curious to kind of fully flesh this out before saying yes to one thing or the other.

I'm not sure I'm necessarily against either, but I might be in favor of both if that makes any sense.

Understood.

I I do think it's important for us to have dates.

I think the two could run in concert with each other.

Um we have to have some sort of guidelines as to when we have to make decisions.

Uh if I could follow if we could maybe um have some commentary from either city manager or the electric director uh growth, and in terms of how you envision either or both of the concepts we've heard so far working either together or separate or parallel.

Um just curious what staff's thoughts are.

Mr.

Krieger.

Uh thank you.

Um, you know, though the way I would envision it, uh I and I don't think it's kind of an either-or.

Uh I view them kind of both uh kind of complimentary.

Um, you know, what the what the mayor is seeking is really uh kind of like the reverse timeline working back from 2035.

Um that will provide us some dates, but it would not provide uh council any direction uh or um information about some of the options that the city would have, and I think that's something important for council to get.

Um so what what I would uh kind of envision um to see if it would work for council would be to um incorporate uh the mayor's timeline discussion um uh with and then follow that up with a discussion uh of the non-IMEA options, uh their pros and cons, um, and uh it I believe that we would be able to accomplish that over a series of city council meetings as opposed to having a separate workshop.

And in my discussions with uh Mr.

Growth, um, thought we could start those in uh the month of April.

Okay.

Councilman Kelly, do you have follow?

Just last follow-up so I'm clear on on the first piece that the mayor is requesting.

Uh, what would the product of that be?

Is this a manager's memorandum?

Are you envisioning an agenda item on a council meeting, or what form would this be coming to us in?

I think there would likely be questions, so I think it should be offered at a public meeting where council can ask questions.

Okay, and separate from a workshop or it could be included in the same thing.

But I think at some point you have to have a time frame of when certain decisions have to be made.

My only my only thought there is that I I think I would favor at the same time.

We we've been a little bit all over the place on this issue.

I I would hesitate a little bit to say let's have one agenda item at a city council meeting and just on dates, come back later on workshop or strategy, just seems like they're so as long as this is in a public meeting, that's all that matters.

So you can ask questions.

Okay.

Councilwoman Givison.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and I would also just like to start by saying while I recognize and appreciate your role in hosting the meeting.

I had my light on well before Councilman Kelly immediately after.

Sorry, I didn't see it.

Um I I agree with you.

I think we need a timeline, one that's discussed in open session, and so we're all hearing the communities hearing.

Um I was discouraged listening to the last PWAB meeting to hear timelines being discussed that were very different from what I've been hearing from staff in multiple meetings across many months.

And I think to Councilman Holzhauer's point, you know, we've heard multiple drop dead dates.

So I absolutely agree we need a timeline, but I think we also to what City Manager Krieger said, I'd like to see staff come back with a timeline that's tied to different options, non-IMEA options.

Um I'm concerned about a motion that's specifically tied to uh sorry how it was worded exactly IMEA.

For example, the pseudo-tie is a timeline that's very important to IMEA, but not necessarily a timeline that dictates our decision, especially if our decision is not IMEA future.

Um so I mean, Councilwoman Sutton and I had a meeting with staff today.

We talked about maybe a format where staff would bring back reports over a series of meetings going over our options, IMEA and non-IMEA options, and what timeline would be needed to make key decisions.

Um kind of a more holistic view to Mr.

Stark's point about strategic plans and Councilman White's um comments about strategic plans.

I agree, but I think this is a good first step because it makes sure as we're planning our priorities, and I know all of us have different opinions uh Pierre about how to weigh different aspects of our post-2035 energy procurement.

But if we start by knowing what our options are and what's out there and what our timeline is for making decisions, then as we have the strategic plans where we discuss and debate and rank our priorities, we're making sure we're doing that grounded in reality of real possibilities.

Um so that would be my preference for hands in the air of a timeline as you suggested, but also a clear outline and open session of what our options are.

Um power marketer, be it IMEA um from staff.

And to ask if I might ask staff a question.

I I believe between our knowledge on staff and the CES report, we've already got staff is already in a position to give us this information, correct?

Mr.

Krieger.

That is correct.

We we feel comfortable um uh with uh that series of workshops.

I'm sorry, not we're not workshops, but uh open meeting discussions during council meetings.

Okay, thank you.

So so perhaps in uh form of a staff report in the meeting, that would be yeah, that that that is what we were envisioning.

Perfect.

All right, thank you.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just want to echo uh what councilwoman Gibson stated.

Uh I think for me, the gap in knowledge is understanding options outside of IMEA.

And I would love to hear from our experts internally, our staff, on what they believe those options are, and with that reporting, a timeline link to it.

Um, because I do believe there could be options, although when we had asked about that in um our previous meeting in January, whether how much time we had to make decisions, I think there was some mixed dates and some confusion around that.

Um, I think this would be a time to clarify that timeline as a dis as it is associated with various options.

For me specifically, I want to see non-IMEA options.

I think we know IMEA um and we've we've kind of discussed that and gotten to a point where there wasn't a meeting of minds, despite a lot of resources and time being dedicated to it.

So hence the pause to allow us to have some bandwidth and room to explore options.

And I think this is a great way to explore those options and have a better understanding of what what those options are.

So um, in agreement with councilwoman Gibson.

Councilman White.

Thank you.

I um I uh agree with the timeline.

I do think we need to have some drop dates on when certain things need to take place, so I would appreciate that.

Uh as far as the options are concerned, I yes, I'd like to see some options, see the options, but I think we're kind of putting the cart before the horse.

I think we need to establish what the overall vision is for what we want for energy.

Once we establish that, now show me the those options that fit within that vision that the council has come up with.

So uh I would advise us to maybe take that approach so staff can go back and say, well, this is what council said they you know the vision is for what we want.

Now let's provide an options that kind of fit within that vision.

So uh that's would be my uh proposal.

Councilman Wilson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um I guess sorry for my confusion here, but sitting in on the P WAB board meetings, I don't even know where to start with this.

Uh sitting in on the POB board meetings, there there have been plenty of options laid out.

Uh for example, this year's 2026.

Uh if we want to do build our own solar uh, for example, I don't know how much it would cost, probably pretty expensive.

We'd probably need to say no to IMEA today and start building that now.

Um, if that's an option.

Uh I guess the decision to pause talks with IMEA uh had uh been disconcerting to me because does that mean not doing anything and then not signing anything, going to 2033, then looking at a power marketer.

Uh there have been PPA options that had been talked about at the PUAB board meeting where we would end up partially going out and then partially doing things in house.

Umbody's brought that up, but they also haven't talked about how uh how that would be done in house.

Uh and and then as far as like the strategy tactical decision, whatever that means, I'm not entirely sure.

Maybe I'm just dense.

Um, I don't know.

If if you walked if you asked some of my neighbors, they who would barely know that this discussion's going on, but they wouldn't know what that means.

I can almost guarantee.

Maybe they're dense like me, too.

But that being said, uh I I mean it to me, to me, it's just vague terms.

Um, you know, you could councilman white and I both work out or whatever.

If we you said you wanted a squat or bench or whatever, some that that was our strategy or whatever, you'd you'd have to have some sort of a goal in mind and plan it out week by week and then go from there and know how much know what you're gonna do, what you're gonna eat or whatever.

Uh anyway, the point being is the costs have to factor into that.

If you're gonna say I want to go completely green or whatever that is, not know how much that that's gonna cost, that's a pretty important uh factor.

So I I don't know.

I I think looking at the timeline and um whatever dates are necessary for what we're trying to do here is an important one.

Thank you.

Councilman Alzheimer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, Councilman Wilson uh you know made his comment about strategy.

I think Benny and I are both coming from military background.

Strategy is just the military way of saying a goal.

And um as I've thought about this process, I really think city council over the past few years, and I'm responsible for it because I was here, but I think as a whole, we have abdicated our responsibility to set a strategic goal.

Okay, it is staff's jobs to execute, and what I hear us do over and over is get in the weeds and be second guessing staff decisions or PUAB decisions.

But to my knowledge, no one's ever said, hey, the city's goal is to cut our carbon emissions by 10% or 15%, or the city's goal is to make sure prices don't go up by more than five percent.

These aren't super hard concepts, but right now when I listen to the PUAB meetings, when I listen to the presentations, uh people don't even know what we want.

I heard one comment at PUAB Well, City Council wants a hundred percent carbon free.

That's not a goal that I've ever outlined.

I don't know if that anyone's on one of the here's goal.

I don't think it's that hard for us to lay it out.

I do think if we don't lay it out, uh that's a real problem from a negotiating perspective.

I think it's a terrible negotiating posture to go to the negotiating counterparty and say, I don't know what I want, you tell me what the options are.

Um imagine going to a car dealer and saying I've no idea what type of car I want, you tell me what are the three best options for me, and I'll consider that.

Um so I um gonna double down on what Councilman White said.

Um, and maybe the way we can do this is we will ask for uh the timeline the mayor's talked about, but I would act after that um concurrently put my hands in the air, ask for hands in the air so that we can have a workshop where we once and for all just lay out what our negotiating goals are.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh largely um what I've heard tonight, there's some things I haven't liked, but for the most part, I I I like this discussion.

It sounds like we're having a discussion, and um I think that's hugely important that we work together on this.

So um uh councilwoman Gibson, I I'm largely in agreement here.

Um mayor, I think timelines are important.

Um, some of these things with with IMEA, um, you know, the the August deadline that did pass.

That can you confirm that, Mr.

Groth?

Uh that contract's not available except anymore, correct?

Director Groth?

That is correct.

It's been withdrawn.

Okay.

So, but we went through a negotiating uh exercise with IMEA, uh, at least right now.

Um there's a possibility, but these other decisions are not a request by our partners, they are actual market forces, actual decisions.

There's gonna be a point in time where IMEA has no choice but to remove the option from us.

Um it could be as early as January 27.

The law requires IMEA to submit or start with an integrated resource plan.

So um, but I think that what councilman councilwoman Gibson is suggesting, um, you know, hey, let's just see all these options.

Let's look at the time frames on how to uh implement those different options.

We have all have an opportunity to ask questions, and um I I do think CES did a good job of laying out our options if you filed with PO B, but I mean hearing from our staff is something I I do think has been missing.

Um you know, you guys are our experts and you're big better experts than we are, and uh I'd like to hear from you guys, but yeah, timeline and then you know, as far as strategic goals, I don't know.

I didn't hear that in the motion.

Um I don't object to those things.

I think what you're gonna find is, and I don't want to speak for staff, but if I were to put myself in their head, um there's probably a fear that people are gonna set future carbon emissions uh goals that box a future staff or box a future council into um uh decisions that may not be possible in the future.

So it just sounds like you could get really into the weeds uh on that.

Uh for me, uh we do have a mission statement that I read that you can read on our electric utilities page.

It's cost, it's stability, it's reliability.

Um, you know, if council wants to change that, I guess somebody can make the motion that that we you know uh those things aren't as important as uh some other things.

So but uh, you know, anyway, I'm kind of rambling on.

I I think I'm fine with council uh with mayor's motion, I'm fine with uh councilwoman Gibson's motion.

If you can incorporate those things together, I I would be on board.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I completely agree that timeline is critical for all of us.

2035 is not too far.

And uh regarding IMEA, we have been talking in this room, another room for the last three years.

And we have talked a lot about that.

So I have suggested earlier also in the last couple of meetings that we need to look for alternate options without any options.

I cannot move forward.

When we go to a restaurant, we uh talk to people and ask them, you know, what are the options you have?

What are the best food you have so that we can decide?

But here I saw three years we have been stuck on IMEA only.

So now we have put a pause.

Let's talk about options.

So my request to the staff will be to bring us some new options, what we have in the market.

So based on that, definitely we can take uh the cost, our requirement, and also then the timeline.

So that will really help us to take decision as city council members and as a community.

And definitely we can bring this on the dials so that openly, transparently we all can discuss and see the options.

Best options, whatever we have, we can take those things.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, I was just gonna say thanks for the clarification there, Councilman Holzauer.

Um, with regard to goals.

I I just I I would hope that we can keep in mind when we're talking about goals, whatever those may be that we have, don't just throw it all at staff and say, oh, here's some goal without keeping in mind whether it's actually feasible.

Like if I I guess to bring back the workout analogy here, if I told Councilman White uh my goal is to run a four or five forty or whatever, and uh he would just laugh and I'm guessing you think that's ridiculous.

So um wouldn't happen.

But uh and and when we're talking also when we're talking about goals, we're not making setting some arbitrary thing, you know.

If we're gonna go, hey, carbon emissions should be 20 percent or whatever.

I'd say where are you getting the 20 percent?

One out of 100.

So um, yeah, I but again, I think timelines and and goals are all important in this discussion.

So thank you, Mayor.

Okay.

Um I think there's likely some consensus between councilwoman Gibson's proposal and my request for some sort of timeline that keeps us guided along the way.

And and keep in mind, my timeline is not specific to IMEA.

It's it's everything and all the different things that are gonna affect our decision making.

So if we're okay with this, um councilwoman uh Gibson, are are you good with with us doing hands in the air for both things combined and and see if we can get a consensus among council?

All right, council, you got it?

Hands in air in support.

We have seven hands in the air.

Okay, Mayor.

Councilman, or I'm sorry, count Mr.

Krieger.

Uh thanks, Mayor.

Um you know it uh lots of different opinions on this.

I I just want to kind of um uh i explain kind of my takeaway and my understanding of that motion um uh is is that it would incorporate uh uh both a discussion uh of a reverse timeline from 2035 uh that would cover all different potential energy options uh that the city could pursue and um that we would um include that with the first staff report that would come back to council at a city council meeting um including the timeline and then we would start with the different non-IMEA options to discuss those uh and um uh I believe that um it would probably take us uh probably three or four um uh meetings or three or four staff reports during council meetings uh to get through the different options.

Thomas Right?

Councilman Alzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

All right, with uh the timeline Mr.

Krieger just laid out, um I would ask uh for hands in the air for once those pr um presentations have been given for us to have um a strategic workshop where the council lays out goals for staff to um pursue our energy future okay that's a special workshop outside of our normal council date.

Correct to lay out if it's three or four goals, just what those are.

Okay.

Are there hands anyone have any clarification for what the councilman's requesting?

Councilwoman Jane?

Thank you, Mayor.

I I just wanted a clarification on the timing of that workshop.

Would that be concurrent to the reports that staff gives us before or after the reporting?

Council Maller.

My well, that's an interesting question.

Um my preference to actually be put before, but if uh if what we just voted on is for reports to start coming in at the next meeting, I'm not sure how that plays in.

It could be earliest as possible, perhaps or not.

Um I'm open to hearing other I see other people are commenting.

Councilman White.

Um thank you.

I I think maybe I'm gonna stand by what was saying before uh as far as options are concerned, uh because I I just think we we've got to do the other part before we see the options so they can provide the options that we've said are important to us.

It may be a good start point be maybe what councilman McRoom said with the mission statement and taking a look at that and let's break that thing down.

Let's not give it lip service, but break it down to determine what we feel is important.

We we've got the pulse of the community, that's why we've all been elected to be up here.

Um and if it's affordability, then let's prioritize that.

If it's uh carbon emissions, let's prioritize it.

But let's kind I think we need to have that discussion before we start looking at the options.

That's my only concern.

So I would prefer that that would happen before the workshop that councilman uh Holesauer just mentioned would happen first before we go to the next councilman.

Um Mr.

Krieger.

Uh th thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Um what I would envision for the first uh staff report.

Um it w it would not be a deep dive into strategy, but um it would include uh a review of the mission statement and um you know kind of like the uh the direction that our electric utility currently has.

So it it it it certainly would not replace a workshop, but it will at least kind of lay out kind of the the guidelines um and groundwork that uh staff will be using as it analyzes the different options.

So that you know that that at least gets us, you know it it gets it out in the air and um can elicit uh some initial discussion.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I appreciate councilmember um White's comments on strategy and vision.

I do think that's important.

I think when I'm thinking about the options that uh staff might provide, I'm thinking about based on our current need and how energy is being utilized, how would we support that need?

out in the air and um can elicit uh some initial discussion councilwoman jane thank you mayor um i i appreciate council member um white's comments on strategy and vision i do think that's important i think when i'm thinking about the options that uh staff might provide i'm thinking about based on our current need and how how energy is being utilized how would we support that need what what what are the models or what are the options out there based on that um and so that would just be a reporting of what um director groth and staff provide uh as to the options now you know to you to your point on how we prioritize that that's where the decision making would happen but first the reporting of what even the options are i i you know i think uh council member um mc broom pointed out it's not it's it's not to think of it in an abstract way although I think that exercise can be helpful um but what what what is actually possible based on how we currently use it and our current needs I'm interested in understanding what staff's perspective is on that um so I don't see it as uh conflicting I don't see I don't see the strategy point as conflicting with the options report um and hence my question on the timing of it um I I think it could fare well even after the reports frankly um and and that might be in a good place for us to assess and then make decisions based on the options before us so comment councilwoman Gibson thank you um I'm gonna agree with councilwoman Jane I think my preference would be for a strategic workshop after we've heard all the options as I mentioned before um just so that way we're making sure I think it's gonna be the most productive way for us to strategize once we know what the options are um I've used the analogy recently um that I'm not going to research a car seat three years before I intend to have kids um the market changes the options are different um and I I kind of feel like the same analogy might stretch it a little but you know me thinking about pie in the sky what I would love in a car seat safety you know when that the car gets hit and an immediate bubble goes around my kid would be wonderful but it's not realistic so I think being able to talk strategy knowing what our realistic options are is going to be the most productive um use of our time staff's time our community's time um so my preference would be a strategic workshop after we've heard the options and the timeline from staff council thank you mayor I have so a couple of follow-up questions maybe one Mr.

Krieger could answer so one I hear the points here but one concern that I have is last time that we had this discussion by the time we got to what was supposed to be a strategic workshop there was extreme time pressure whether real or manufactured uh and that really cut off the ability to have what I thought would be a thoughtful discussion and so I have this concern so Mr.

Krieger if we have a strategic workshop in whenever it is June July August will there be another deadline where we're told that we don't have time to explore other options Mr Krieger uh to the best of my knowledge no you know in in in discussing uh kind of this issue uh with with Mr.

Growth uh probably the longest term option um where we would need to have a decision point would be uh like six seven uh at the most kind of eight years uh in advance of the 2035 um uh you know deadline um so I I am you know right now I'm I feel very confident that we would not be pressed with a deadline after we complete our review of all of the options okay and then um just with regard to councilman wilson's point about sort of you know pie in the sky running a four five um I think there's some football players that run a four four so it's it's doable uh um I'll just throw one out most of the other communities in Chicagoland have carbon usage at a certain percentage so clearly that can be done uh that might be a strategic goal right and I I don't think that's undoable for Naperville to to be like an average community uh right now we're far from that goal maybe by 10 years from now we could be at that benchmark so um while it might be my preference that we at least establish some simple thing like that before reports I I'm fine with the plan here um I'd be fine with doing it after we hear the the options in the summer so I'll ask for hands in the air for for that okay so just to clarify you're talking about doing the strategic workshop after the presentations at city council meetings I think that's what most of the council was was hoping for so I'm good with that council everybody understand what he's asking for okay hands in the ear in support of councilman um's request all right seven seven hands in the air thank you mayor okay any other new business seeing none may I have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn is a second second Kelly all those in favor say aye aye we're adjourned