Good evening and welcome to the May 19th, Naperville City Council meeting.

Roll call.

Worley.

Here.

Gibson.

Here.

Hall Tower.

Here.

Jane.

Kelly.

Here.

McBroom.

Here.

Cyan.

Here.

White.

Here.

Wilson.

Here.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Before we begin tonight, I want to take a moment to focus on one of our own.

Our electric director, Brian Growth, was involved in a serious accident on Saturday evening when he was struck by a vehicle.

This is always a very difficult time for Brian and his family.

First on our agenda is awards and recognition, and Councilman McRoom is the Mayor Potem, who will be presenting tonight.

So the Accessibility Community Task Force and the Advisory Commission on Disabilities annually recognizes the efforts of students in the community who make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities by removing barriers and stereotypes for their fellow students.

Seth's kindness and unwavering work ethic and body the very best of District 203.

Thank you.

Next, if we can have uh Dea Gupta come up.

Dea Gupta, is an exceptional peer in the Naperville North High School multi-needs program.

She brings positivity and energy to the classroom and promotes friendship and inclusion.

Dea is an active member of Best Buddies, is an adapted PE peer and part of the Reading Buddies program.

She spends time with students both in school and out of school.

She's a phenomenal individual.

Next up, Joshua Haynes.

Joshua Haynes is recognized for his remarkable transformation and exemplary service within the adapted physical education program at Wabonzi Valley High School.

After beginning his journey as a student navigating his own challenges, Joshua has flourished in his senior year as a dedicated peer partner.

He now stands as a pillar of leadership using his competitive spirit to uplift others rather than just himself.

He exhibits exemplary contributions to his peer partner activities, marked by tremendous personal growth, effective leadership, and a positive, encouraging presence that inspires others to participate and succeed.

Next up, we have Alexandra Krumdick.

As a dedicated Best Buddies president and adapted PE leader, Lexi has been an exemplary force for inclusion at Naperville North High School.

She goes above and beyond to advocate for students with disabilities, ensuring every individual feels a true sense of belonging in our school and community.

She plans events and spends time with her best buddies' friends and attends best buddies leadership conferences.

Lexi's commitment to fostering a welcoming environment makes her an outstanding role model who will undoubtedly continue to make a positive impact in the future.

Next, we have Vivian Murphy.

Vivian, a senior at Naperville Central High School, is an extraordinary leader whose commitment to students with special needs is rooted in deep empathy and personal passion.

Serving as a dedicated peer leader in adapted art and a steadfast participant of Team 203 Fire Special Olympics, Vivi does not just volunteer, she holds she builds genuine lasting friendships, ensuring every fear peer feels valued and included.

Her commitment is non-momentary, it is sustained, intentional, and rooted in who she is as a person.

And last but not least, we have Finnegan O'Toole.

Finn O'Toole is a remarkable student leader whose dedication to empathy, integrity, and radical inclusion has transformed his school community.

Whether in the classroom or as a dedicated partner with Matea Valley Special Olympics and Regional Athletics, Finn leads with patience and genuine partnership, breaking down barriers and ensuring every peer feels valued.

His commitment to teamwork, perseverance, and inclusion extends beyond the classroom and into athletics, where he continues to lead by example.

His leadership and unwavering commitment to uplifting others make him a deserving recipient of this recognition, and he leaves behind a legacy of kindness and advocacy.

Okay.

Thank you very much and congratulations.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

Next we have Memorial Day and National Moment of Remembrance.

You guys want to come on up?

Memorial Day National Moment of Remembrance, May 25th, 2026.

Whereas Memorial Day each year serves as a solemn reminder of the scourge of war and its bitter aftermath of sour, sour.

Sorrow, sorry.

And whereas our men and women in uniform have sacrificed their lives to maintain the security of our great nation and the liberties we hold dear.

And whereas the United States Congress is a joint resolution in a joint resolution approved May 11th, 1950, provided that Memorial Day should be set aside as a day of prayer for permanent peace and whereas the Judd Kendall VFW Post 3873, the American Legion Post 43, and the dedicated volunteers of the Naperville Memorial Day Parade will hold memorial observances on May 25th, 2026, in honor of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to our nation.

And whereas residents are invited to pause in an act of national unity for one minute minute of silence at 3 PM as part of the National Moment of Remembrance.

Now, therefore, I, Scott Worley, mayor of City Naperville, do high do hereby proclaim May twenty-fifth, two thousand twenty six as Memorial Day and National Moment of Remembrance in the City of Naperville.

Okay, so now we have the VFW Buddy Poppy Days, May 20th through May 24th, 2026.

Whereas the annual distribution of Buddy Poppies by the veterans of foreign wars of the United States has been officially recognized by government leaders since 1922.

And whereas the VFW Buddy Poppies are assembled by disabled veterans, and the proceeds of this worthy fundraising campaign are used exclusively for the benefit of veterans and their families.

And whereas the basic purpose of the annual distribution of buddy poppies by the veterans of foreign wars is eloquently reflected in the desire to honor the dead by helping the living.

I'd like to first start off with saying how grateful we are for the great the tremendous and support we get as veterans from the city, the city government, and the citizens of the of this great city.

As she said, Poppy Day is coming up 20th through the 24th.

You'll see volunteers around town, mostly at the food stores, uh distributing poppies, the red poppy flower has been a remembrance of those who we lost who gave the ultimate sacrifice for over 100 years.

Uh the money we raise here helps us do the things we do all year, like uh sending a bus to Heinz every month, Christmas cards to the uh Christmas gift cards to the veterans, uh supporting organizations like the Midwest Shelter for Homeless Veterans, etc.

All part of the VIA program, a VW program that is remembering the dead by supporting delivery.

We thank you for your support.

Next 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, finger snapping, 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 continues to persist, I will recess the meeting until the audience abides by the rules in our city code.

No speaker should ever feel intimidated by the crowd.

Audience 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 will be given three minutes to address the city council to help speakers stay within the three-minute time frame.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, when your name is called, please come and have a seat in the front row.

Mrs.

Schatz, please call the speakers.

There are two written comments posted to the city's website.

We have six speakers this evening.

The first three speakers are Derek Adam Hoover, Whitney Glowackey and Bill Simon.

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

And you you may proceed, Mr.

Hoover.

Morning, everyone, after evening.

Sorry.

Um I'm getting back to you about um what we spoke about a couple months ago about my um request for an amendment to the e-bike law.

Um I've gotten little to no conversation back from any of the senators that are sponsoring the bill.

Um two of them did say they were going to set up meetings with me, and since in that time I've heard nothing back from any of them.

I've been sending two to three emails a week to all their offices.

Um most recently, Jenny Gangore's office reached out to Michelle Paul, director of the Office of Legislative Affairs.

She's now been in almost daily contact with me, telling me that the time has passed for this, that because the senators didn't get back to me, they've chosen to listen to other municipalities and based their decision on what other municipalities have done.

When I brought to her attention what we were trying to pass and what this board unanimously accepted, and the way it was written by Mr.

DeSanto, I forward that along to everyone involved.

They've basically decided that it was not passed in Naperville, so they're not going to take it into account.

So I'm basically here asking for your help if there's anyone you know you can reach out to, because I'm exhausting basically a full-time job right now, trying to get some movement on this.

Because it again, I've read all 69 pages of it today, and it it it makes no sense to me to be quite honest.

The fact that they're going to continue to allow 15 and up to ride high speed vehicles on the road under the guise that they're gonna make people register them and insure them.

We all know that's not gonna happen.

The majority of people that are going to be forced to do that are older people my age who use them to get to the trains and back to cut down on traffic, but the younger kids who are riding are just gonna continue to ride and to again to take them away from families like mine who ride lower speed bikes responsibly.

I just don't understand how the bill thinks that in any way is protecting the public.

Again, my e-bikes, the ones my kids ride, go slower than my 10-speed bike.

I can get on my rollerblades and go faster than I can on my e-bike.

But yet they're saying that this is somehow a public safety issue and that they've made the determination based on again what's been passed in other municipalities.

I think what you guys wrote was highly proactive.

I also brought to their attention that this that here in Naperville, we passed an e-bike law long before the state ever even considered it, and that you guys have proven to be much more thought out about it, and again, did something before the state did.

So that's why I'm here today.

If anyone has the time, and I know you're all busy.

If anyone has the time or the means to speak to anyone in regards to and let them know this city's concern, I would greatly appreciate it because I'm really wearing myself down trying to get some movement on this because I just don't think it's right to take it away from families.

You guys all know what I proposed, and I still think that it's more than fair, and I've also brought to their attention at the very least, leave it up to municipalities then.

If they took it into account that other municipalities have passed laws, which it even says here goes as young as 12, then let the municipalities make the decisions about the lower speed bikes because again, I'm not they're not unsafe.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Whitney Glowacke, followed by Bill Simon.

All right.

I'm here to discuss my severe disappointment with Naperville Park District.

The 15-year cycle of replacing park equipment is the latest example of wasted resources, wasted taxpayer money, and appalling lack of concern for ecosystems or residential communities in Naperville decisions.

I'm here as a checks and balances on other departments as well that are failing to make responsible choices for communities over private business desires.

I'm calling out departments that are failing to listen to residents' concerns and failing to protect ecosystems we interact with on a daily basis.

I'll start with the lack of communication to residents directly affected by park renovations.

The park district claims there was a two-week capital project's open house event in 2025 of July.

I represent a group of families from Spring Hill with children that play at the parks almost daily.

We saw no physical notifications at the park about any open houses or input for our imminent future park.

Information on the website is not enough.

There were no physical notifications passed out in the neighborhood or mailed to our addresses about getting input for the new park.

The only communication about the parks I remember is when I voted against it in renovations for community survey.

Whatever efforts were taken to inform the public, they didn't work.

All the Spring Hill residents with no children are now surprised, which means the parks department has failed miserably to communicate their actions and effects to the residents they serve.

The parks department needs a better residential communications department for future projects.

The park district has failed to prove that every park needs to be removed and replaced.

There is not a legally binding proof that requires every beloved safe and functional park equipment to be completely removed and put in a landfill for 15 years.

Now on to the appalling lack of concern for earth ecosystems and natural resources in Naperville by multiple departments.

I've count I've contacted multiple departments about the plastic netting, also known as erosion control blankets that are contaminating Naperville soil everywhere construction is done.

Naperville is actively paying private landscaping companies to add microplastics to our water and soil by allowing erosion blanket erosion control blanket installation.

Spring Hill has been actively seeking drainage maintenance for the waterways connected to Spring Hill, and we've been ignored for two years by multiple departments.

I want my money going to removing the plastic and trash from ecosystems surrounding residential streets and parks.

I want my money going to companies that operate out of Naperville to improve our local economy.

I want my money going towards maintenance of our natural resources in a sustainable way, not just, or I want maintenance, not replacement.

I have been begging Naperville government departments for three years to make small changes that can make big impacts.

This part project just proves my point about Naperville's government departments wasting resources, wasting taxpayer money.

I'm severely disappointed Naperville is treating Earth like a trash can.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Bill Simon, followed by Ted Boulard and Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good morning, Mr.

Mayor and City Council.

My name is Bill Simon, and I'm speaking for Naperville Preservation Inc.

As you will recall, I highlighted at the last meeting that May is National Historic Preservation Month.

Also in honor of the month, we're highlighting another accomplishment the publication of Progress Through Preservation, which Naperville Preservation Inc.

prepared after extensive research and in-person meetings with most of you.

You received a digital copy earlier this month, and a hard copy was mailed to you in the past few days, so you should all have this.

The document compares Naperville's preservation efforts with 30 other communities, outlining the relative number of local landmarks and historic districts.

It is a fortunate coincidence that also on tonight's agenda is a discussion about the workload in the city plant cities planning office.

Some cities planning departments include at least one full-time preservation planner.

Some other cities have planners who spend half their time on preservation.

Naperville has one planner who spends approximately 15% of their time on preservation.

So please accept this report and consider how historic preservation can make Naperville an even better community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Ted Boulard, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening, Mr.

Mayor, City Council members, and residents of Naperville.

I'm Ted Billard, here with a couple minutes with Nest.

First, I'd like to give a quick shout out to the city's sustainability department about their wildly successful composting event held a week ago on Saturday, May 9th.

Long lines of cars filled with buckets and bags and shovels and folks showed up before and during and after posted hours at both city locations to receive free compost.

Kudos go out to Midwest Midwest Compost LLC for donating compost to the city, to Group for transporting the compost containers, and especially to Ben Mulesness and Peyton Shield for organizing, promoting, and for shoveling in support of this great event.

Looking ahead, we're two months away from the city's next styrofoam recycling event that will take place the morning of Saturday, July 18th.

Save your styrofoam and participate in the city's event to help keep this stuff out of our landfills.

See the city's website for more details.

Pivoting to last night's monthly community community meeting, Nest hosted Green Builder Craig Schneider, who spoke to uh Batavia's energy audit initiative with a presentation entitled How a Home Energy Audit Saves Money and Cuts Emissions.

On June 15th, Nest will host speakers from the Citizens Utility Board, Naperville's very own Ben Mulseness, and some of Nest's climate coaches to share with you a roadmap you can use to lower your utility bills by improving your home's energy efficiency.

For more information, please go to Sustain Naperville.org.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer, followed by Laura Leone.

Okay.

Good evening.

Property owners in Naperville should be aware of how utility work within private easements is engineered, reviewed, and carried out.

Years ago, utilities routinely provided property owners with engineering plans showing easement locations and evacuation excavation areas before work began.

That is no longer standard practice.

City staff says they cannot require utility companies to share plans even when work affects private property.

They also state that the city conducts only a very limited review, and that applicants and their design professionals are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the application materials they submit.

As a result, applications may proceed without accurate easement information or even a platter survey.

Engineering diagrams can contain significant inaccuracies.

This is particularly problematic because some engineering diagrams are now being generated using AI and unreliable source material such as Google Maps.

One plan we obtained show two buildings and two addresses on our parcel where only one exists and no marked easements.

Another failed to accurately show fences, utility pedestals, and property features.

It appeared to place a property lines through our parcel rather than marking easements.

A property, a properly prepared diagram would have clearly identified the correct work area.

Contractors sometimes change installation methods or routes in the field because of unmarked varied utilities and overcrowded easements.

Without independent inspection, it can be difficult for property owners to determine whether cables and conduit were appropriately installed.

This problem creates significant potential for error and abuse.

Property owners should be should independently verify that utility work affecting their property is accurate, properly located, and fully restored.

I recommend to photograph areas as soon as you become aware that utility work may appear on or near your property.

Insist on obtaining engineering plans from the utility or Naperville code enforcement.

Compare those plans with your property survey to confirm easement locations.

Photograph bore pits and disturbed areas before they are covered and restored.

Report concerns to both the utility and the city.

Ensure all disturbed areas are properly and promptly restored.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final speaker is Laura Leon.

Good evening.

I am a resident of Naperville and I'm also an immigration lawyer, and I would like to speak on regards to the ordinance.

The reason why I'm speaking about this right now is because I have to leave home because I'm breastfeeding, so I can't stay late for the actual ordinance to be addressed before the city.

Naperville has long valued dignity and belonging and respect of all its residents.

This ordinance affirms the city's commitment to constitutional protections guaranteed under the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendment, including due process.

The 14th Amendment specifically applies the protections of the federal bill of rights to the states and local governments.

Be reminded that the Tenth Amendment states the power not delegated to the United States by its constitution nor forbid it to it by it to the states are reserved to the states respectfully to the people.

This means that if the constitution does not specifically give a power to the federal government, it does not forbid states from exercising it.

The states can create and enforce its own laws in those areas.

This includes licensing, education, family law, and sometimes criminal law matters.

Local governments can create laws and policies like Stonian rules, local policy and policies, business permits, curfews, and municipality codes as long as they do not conflict with state law or federal law.

As such, this ordinance, Naperville due process municipality property ordinance number 26-0614.

It's very important to clarify the use of city property.

The ordinance clarifies that the city owned property should not be designated as a staging area for civil immigration enforcement activities.

This is about the city's authority to use its own property and resources.

Sometimes municipalities have the authority to manage.

Additionally, the ordinance does not override federal law or interfere with federal law immigration enforcement.

It explicitly allows access with valid judicial warrant or court orders if presented to ensure compliance with federal and state laws.

This ordinance does not interfere with federal law or uh federal federal government or its thoughts, rather, this ordinance provides its agents of the federal government and state authorities to use city-owned property.

We cannot allow federal agents to show up in our communities without properly requesting permission to use such pro uh public spaces.

We need to ensure that the residents of Naperville are protected, including our immigrant community like myself.

Naperville has the authority to regulate its use of its own facilities, personal and resources.

The ordinary explicitly allows access pursuant to valid judicial warrant or court order.

The ordinate operates within within its constitutional boundaries while respecting federal law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next item is council public forum.

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

Do any council members have an item for public form?

I want to um uh address uh Ms.

Cloacki, I believe is the correct uh pronunciation uh regarding her concerns regarding uh the park district.

You know, obviously the city doesn't have any oversight over the park district replacement cycle of their equipment, but with regard to your other uh concern and uh erosion control mats and those being plastic, I think that's something that we can certainly look at and investigate.

And I I know factually there is other means and best management practices out there for accomplishing that same task, so I'd certainly like to hear from our professional staff in the future what options are currently being utilized and allowed, and if there's anything that we can do to accommodate that.

Councilman White, thank you, Mayor.

Um, just I wanted to address the the build act, uh that was been has been discussed, so um, I'm not just gonna read this.

Recently, some members of the council took to social media to discuss the build act.

It's a proposal intended to address housing shortages across Illinois.

While I appreciate the state's effort to address housing affordability, I do not believe a one-size-fits-all mandate from Springfield is the right solution for Naperville.

It is also important to remember that this proposal is still in its early stages with no final decisions made.

That is exactly why conversations like this should be rooted in thoughtful dialogue, facts, and community input, not fear or political rhetoric.

I think most of most on this dais want our public safety officials or teachers, health care workers, young families, seniors, and other essential members of our workforce to have an opportunity to live in the community that they serve.

It is somewhat hypocritical when we praise the people who make our community great, but have not enough but have not done enough to create opportunities for them to live where they work.

Think about the many large cities across the country, similar to Chicago.

Some require public employees to live within the community they serve.

I'm not suggesting Naperville adopt those same policies, but I do believe it is important to understand the spirit behind why those policies exist.

At the end of the day, one of the greatest strengths of being a home ruled municipality is that Naperville has the authority to make locally driven balanced decisions that address housing affordability while protecting the character and integrity of our neighborhoods.

That is the approach that I will that will best serve Naperville now and into the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Halzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

First, first I want to give a shout out to Napor Settlement and to thank them.

If some of you remember a couple of months ago, a number of council members throughout the idea of adding some diversity to naming the streets in Naperville.

And um the settlement provided some historical research on some names of uh notable uh diverse Naprole residents in all kinds of ways who've contributed to our community.

Um also want to give out a shout out to um some of our developers, specifically Ross Nova and Whitaker.

I know I've been um the attorneys for the developers have been open to um incorporating some some names in their next subdivision, so just a lot of good progress on that.

Uh another thing uh just wanted to bring up with regard to both neighbor's settlement and the river walk.

Um, as many of you know, the riverwalk has a 2031 master plan.

Um many of the upgrades that are contemplated in that have either been done or we have groundbreaking them on on them this year in time for uh the bicentennial.

Um as I was talking to representatives of the neighbor settlement board uh last week.

Um, one idea that that they brought up was a little bit of maybe a lack of visual connectivity between the settlement and downtown.

I don't want to put words in their mouth.

Uh, but one thing that occurred to me is that maybe it would be a good addition to the River Walks long-term planning to address the one block between the river walk and um and the entryway to Naper Settlement.

As I understand it, they are planning kind of a grand gateway at the intersection of uh Washington and Webster.

So just to put that out into the universe, that would be right on this side of the building.

Um for those of you who know who know the river walk.

There's a brand guide that very specifically states what kind of bricks are to be used, what kind of benches are to be used, what kind of street lights are to be used, and maybe that would be a nice um thing that could help connect that part of um the Naperville experience to the rest of downtown.

Final thing I wanted to comment comment on is I saw a really um interesting article today.

Um so there's a suburb of Boston called Framingham, and there is a pilot program out there where you can now check into a flight at Logan International Airport in Framingham.

So you can go to a suburban facility.

Um there's TSA guards there, there's um gate check facility.

I'm sorry, uh bag check facilities.

Basically, you clear TSA in Framingham, you get on a secure bus, and it has access into the airfield and delivers you gateside um at Logan Airport.

So this actually isn't that far-fetched an idea.

Um the same charter company that runs that service in Framingham also runs services outside of Chicago.

So you can fly on American Airlines and actually get checked all the way through to South Bend or to Rockford on a bus, same charter company that's running with this pilot program in uh Massachusetts.

It's a little different uh the way it's run out of Chicago.

Right now, those charter buses go to airport facilities.

Um, but we are doing uh some discussion about potentially I-88 corridor study tonight.

Um as I was reading this, I thought wow, wouldn't it be you know great if you could check your bags out of Naperville directly, maybe right at the Naperville Road exit on I88.

Um the big thing though is to get a pilot program like that, I think it will take action from government.

You know, we're not gonna just get a pilot program because they choose us.

Um, so I sent an email to Naperville Development Partnership, send an email to staff, hope it's something they'll look into, because I just think that would be the greatest thing if if you could frankly check your your flight all the way through to Naperville.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

Our next item is consent agenda.

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

Councilman away.

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

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion passes nine zero.

May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I'm moved to approve the consent agenda.

Psychic Kelly.

Mrs.

Schatz, please read the consent agenda.

Approval of the April Cash Disbursements for a total of 45 million, five hundred and fifty four thousand nine hundred and twenty-day dollars and seventy-seven cents.

Approval of the May 5th, 2026 for your city council meeting minutes.

Approval of the city council meeting schedule for June, July, and August 2026.

Receiving the year-to-date investment and cash balance report through March 31st, 2026.

Receiving the year-to-date budget report through April 30th, 2026.

Accepting the public improvements, the Neperville Polo Club Phase 1 and authorizing the city clerk to reduce the corresponding public improvement surety.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for bucket truck replacement unit 516 to all tech industries for an amount not to exceed 226,850.

Approval of the award of the bid for pipe fitting, plumbing, and mechanical services to Dame Mechanical Industries for an amount not to exceed $567,980 for one-year term.

Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for West Waterworks and pass 15E improvements to Dame Mechanical Industries for an additional ninety-one days.

Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for office supplies, operating supplies, and small equipment to Amazon for an amount not to exceed $200,000.

Approval of the award of change order number five to the contract for Harris Radio System Maintenance Agreement to L3 Harris Corporation for an amount not to exceed $53,526, plus any additional as needed cost as defined in section C and D of the addendum and for an additional one-month term.

Passing the ordinance approving an amendment to the City of Naperville 2025 annual budget in the amount of $3,074,800, passing the ordinance approving variances for a private gym and lacrosse training facility for the property located at 655 North Washington Street.

Waiving the first reading and passing the ordinance amending section 1-8B-4 of the Naperville Municipal Code regarding ambulance and emergency response services billing and waiving the first reading and passing the ordinance to establish two-way stop control at the intersection of Bigfoot Lane, Bel Air Court, and Zanger Avenue.

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

Roll call.

Morley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Hold tower.

Aye.

Kelly.

I think Broom.

Aye.

Say it.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Motion passes 8-0.

And I want to back up for the clerk and remind her that I made a mistake when I was announcing the vote totals.

We have one council person here, so it's 8-0 on the other ones.

Thank you.

Item J1.

Item J1 is recommendation to concur with the petitioner, open the public hearing for the Bower Road Duplexes, and continue the case to the June 16th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Public hearing for the Bower Road Duplexes is now open.

Anyone who wishes to speak may come forward.

Seeing nobody, the public hearing will be continued until the June 16th, 2026 City Council meeting.

M1.

Item M1 is a recommendation to approve the award of the bid from North Central College Riverwalk Park, 430 South Washington Street to Baumgartner Construction for an amount not to exceed $2,049,192.32 plus a 3% contingency.

There is one speaker, Marilyn Schweitzer.

Thank you.

And Mayor Pratem with Room will be proceeding to be.

Okay, good evening.

So I realize that the city, park district, and North Central College will all benefit from this project.

The property has been an IFOR for more than two decades, half of that time while being owned by the college.

However, given that the college spent less than half a million on the property, while the city is spending more than two million to construct the park along with roughly 20K annually for maintenance.

I question whether this arrangement represents the most balanced use of taxpayer resources.

I hope future projects are approached with care consideration towards fiscal responsibility and equitable partnerships.

Thank you.

Councilman Gibson, I'll entertain a motion on M1.

Oh, actually, I have some comments.

Comments for discussion.

Thank you.

I'd just like to say your points are well taken, Marilyn.

I asked quite a few questions pertaining to this item in the QA.

And it's my understanding that there were ordinances in 2016 and 2022 that commit us to the work in this park.

I do think the park is a huge improvement over what is there now and what many of us remember has been there in the past.

Um and I'm really grateful.

Um I think it looked beautiful, and also for the accessibility of this new park.

But I did have some of the same concerns you had, Marilyn.

So I did clarify in the QA, and actually if staff could just verify that North Central will be covering the cost of their sign and the historical elements, whereas we're covering the cost of the park.

That is correct.

So with the bid tonight, uh the city will be funding the installation of the sign foundation and the electric service, uh but the remainder of the sign, all the decorative elements will be paid for by North Central College.

Okay.

Thank you.

So um I again this item I believe is tied to existing ordinances, but I appreciate the verification from staff that any branding or historical monuments or notes are done by North Central, not taxpayers.

So thank you.

See no further discussion now.

We'll take an entertainment motion for M1.

I move to approve the award of bid 26015 North Central College Riverwalk Park 430 South Washington Street to Baumgartner Construction Incorporated for an amount not to exceed 2 million 49,192.32 cents plus a 3% contingency.

Second Kelly.

Roll call.

Gibson.

Aye.

Old Tower?

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McBroom.

I cyan.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

I.

Motion carries 7.0.

Item M2.

Item M2 is a recommendation to approve the award of the bid for the 2026 led water service replacement program to try and construction corporation for an amount not to exceed 3,393,800 plus a 3% contingency.

Councilman White.

I moved to I move to approve the award of bid 25-253 2026 led water service replacement program to try and construction corporation for an amount not to exceed three million three hundred and ninety-three thousand six hundred eight hundred dollars plus a three percent contingency.

Council McKelly?

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M2.

Roll call.

Old tower.

Aye.

Kelly.

I've broom.

Aye.

Cyan.

Aye.

Wait.

Aye.

Wilson.

I quarley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Motion passes eight zero.

Next item.

Item O one is recommendation to authorize the city manager to increase the 2026 personal personnel headcount and hire two full-time medical billing representatives in the fire department.

Councilman White.

I move to authorize the city manager to increase the 2026 personnel headcount and hire two full-time medical billing representatives in the fire department.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on 01.

Discussion, Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

I was just hoping Chief could give us a quick summary here and your thoughts on it.

Chief Buchnitis.

Mark Pucknight is fire chief.

Be happy to answer those questions and anything else that you may have regarding this.

This is a really great opportunity for us in the city of Naperville, especially in the fire department to be a unique situation in handling our own billing for emergency medical services that we have.

First thing I want to point out, and I want everybody that is listening to understand is that there is no person that lives in Naperville that is that is going to have to pay any out-of-pocket costs for emergency medical services billing now, nor has there been in the past.

So what this allows us to do, first of all, it eliminates any of the commissions that we used to pay to a third party, which equate to over $300,000 usually on average.

And it also allows us to have more control so we can have more quality in turning over those uh those bills to the billing companies.

I'm sorry, not to the billing companies, but to uh Medicare, Medicaid, and also the other payer mixes that we have, uh the insurance companies and things like that.

It's very timely process, and we feel that we have the expertise to do that uh internally, and we're hiring the two billers along with our medical uh billing specialists that we already have on board to make that happen.

It's a very unique uh opportunity.

There are I think there's only one or two other fire departments in the state that are doing that.

None of those fire departments are even close to the size of Naperville and the volume that we have.

So from a service perspective, from a quality control is an enhancement, but also from a cost perspective is gonna save us a tremendous amount of money going forward.

Thanks, Chief.

Any other discussion?

All right, we have a motion and a second on O1, roll call.

Kelly.

I've broom.

Aye.

Cyan.

Ike White.

I Wilson.

I.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzauer.

Aye.

Motion passes a zero.

Item O two.

Item O two is a recommendation to receive a special event and community arts grant fund presentation and reach consensus on modifications to the SECA policy and procedures manual prior to the presentation by the community services team.

We have one written comment that was posted to the website and two speakers.

The first speaker is Judith Broadhead, followed by Carolyn Schweitzer.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

It's nice to be here on behalf of CECA, and I only have a few things to say.

And I hope you uh enjoy going through all the work that we have been doing over the past several months.

Uh we knew there were a number of uh issues having to do with uh SECA that should be addressed, and uh we as you have been disappointed by some major events that were uh canceled when it was too late to allocate those funds to uh a different event or increase the amount we were able to give uh organizations if we had had those funds available.

So something that uh we talked about and decided uh was that if you if you want to think about the one thing that pulls all the different kinds of Sika projects together, since they're so different, anything from a you know, uh the last fling to a big parade to uh a mural, as you see on the side of the children's museum, to um other art around town, to uh uh a theater project of some kind of musical presentation, um, an ethnic celebration.

What brings all of those things together?

And the language that we came up with, is that um, and you'll probably see this in our upcoming refined mission statement, in some way, is whether a project creates meaningful shared experiences and cultivates a sense of belonging within the Naperville community.

So that's what we're looking for, in addition to you know all of the hoops that we want people to jump through and all of the standards that we want them to follow.

That this is this is the point of SECA.

Um you have a lot to look at, and we we look forward to your response to it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer.

Uh good evening.

Page 401 of the 2026 city budget shows two SECA entries, the grant program and city obligations.

City obligations we see slightly more funding than grants.

Combined, SECA receives 35% of the food and beverage tax.

However, there is limited public-facing information regarding SECA obligations.

The special events and community arts program webpage does not even reference them.

And understanding this portion of the program requires reviewing prior city council meetings on Legistar.

My understanding was that the City Council request to review CECA policies and procedures would include both grants and obligations.

It appears that the review has primarily focused only on grants.

Given the size and scope of the overall program, meaning grants and obligations, I believe a comprehensive review of both components is important to ensure transparency and effective oversight.

Regarding the decision matrix on tonight's agenda, I offer the following comments.

First, I support authorizing staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund Memorial Day parade as a city obligation.

Second, any change in program scope should include appropriate public notification, for example, through a manager's memorandum rather than simply a Friday confidential.

Third, I support establishing a formal policy expectation that grant funded initiatives move forward self-sustainably over time.

I also believe city obligations should be subject to clear policy guidance to help avoid unsustainable expenditures.

I also suggest considering their use of at other large public events such as Last Flip Fling and Irish Fest.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

We have a presentation from our professional staff, Community Services Director Marcotus.

We're ready when you are.

Good evening, Mayor Worley and members of the City Council.

I'm Melanie Marcordis, Director of Community Services, and I'm joined tonight by Jake Feeler, Special Events Coordinator.

Tonight we're presenting an overview of the special events and community arts program.

Over the past 20 years, this program has become an established part of the city support for special events and cultural programming.

This discussion is intended to provide context and how the program has evolved, highlight what it currently supports, and outline potential refinements for council's consideration as we look ahead.

Good evening.

Before we get into policy details, I want to take a moment to zoom out because it's easy to get lost in the details and forget the broader impact of this program.

CECA is the engine behind what makes Naperville special events, if you like Naperville, the parades, the cultural festivals that bring thousands of people to Naperville.

The public art people walk past on the lunch break.

These are not random.

They are investments, and SECAT is how we make that happen.

Tonight, we're going to strengthen that engine.

This is a policy briefing, a directions setting session for program year 2027.

We're going to be efficient, we're going to be clear, and we're going to make sure you have everything you need to move forward with confidence.

Just ours off on that path.

I'll turn it back over to Director McCordis.

Before we dive in, I want to ground us in why we're here.

SECA continues to support Naperville's cultural landscape, from the arts to special events to public art installations that contribute to the character of our community.

That has not changed.

What tonight reflects is an opportunity to further strengthen the clarity and consistency of how these funds are administered, with the goal of making the program easier to navigate and more transparent for applicants, the commission, and for council.

Here is a roadmap for tonight.

Three sections.

I want to walk through what we'll be asking of you in each one.

Section one is background.

This is context only, no decisions needed.

We will walk through how SECA got here in 20 years of council directed evolution.

Section two is administrative.

These are operational refinements the commission has already worked through.

We're presenting them as a package for your concurrence.

Think of this section as housekeeping that's already been done.

Section three is key topics.

This is where we need your direction.

Four specific topics, clear requests, and we'll flag each one when we get there.

Let's do a quick run through, because this timeline tells you the context of how SECA works.

It starts in 2004.

The council created and dedicated a cultural fund funded by the food and beverage tax.

That's the moment SECA was born, and critically it moved forward cultural investment of the general fund and gave it its own land.

In 2010 to 2013, the SECA fund was capped.

The tax structure was refined, and public safety pensions began receiving a portion of food and beverage fund revenues.

In 2016, operational clarity.

The city obligations framework came in, which we'll talk more about tonight.

This separated civic commitments from discretionary grants.

2020 to 2022, SECA expansion.

Public arts was added to the mission, representing a program enhancement rather than an increase in funding.

Today and tonight, we're here.

Policy alignment, refining eligibility, updating classification, and making the process more transparent.

The common threat is this.

Every change along the way has been improved by council, often informed by recommendations from CECA commissioners.

CECA has never been a passive program.

It's grown through your choices and the choices of those who preceded you.

Tonight is another moment in the ongoing stewardship.

Before we go any further, I want to make sure we're all anchored in the same fiscal reality, because it shapes every decision we'll make here tonight.

Total food and beverage tax revenue projected for 2026 is almost $7 million.

Of that total, CKAT allocation is capped at $2.51 million.

This is a hard cap established by City Code.

As council recall, the CAP remained 1.9 million for many years before being increased to $2.51 million for 2026.

That increase expanded the city's capacity to support community events, arts, and cultural programming while still maintaining a defined and predictable funding structure.

The food and beverage tax and appropriate funding source for SECA because it is directly tied to the economic activity generated by special events and community arts.

At the same time, the SECAT CAP ensures responsive, measured, and investment of taxpayer dollars.

That balance is important because the food and beverage fund supports more than CECA alone.

In addition to funding community programming, it also plays an important role in supporting police environmental pensions, long-term debt, neighborhood settlement, and social service grants, which helps reduce pressure on the property tax levy.

Here's why that matters.

We received over 80 funding applications this year.

That's a lot of community energy, a lot of initiatives competing for a fixed pool of resources.

When you hear a dollar amount tonight, whether it's a special event, a parade cost, or a category allocation, it all comes out of that same $2.51 million.

The SECA fund is stable, it's well managed, and it's governed by policy, not by the size of the request or volume of the ask.

Now let's talk about how funding decisions are actually get made.

Because this is the core of the entire process.

Three pillars drive every single funding recommendation: operational excellence, fiscal discipline, and community impact.

These aren't new.

They've been their framework for years.

When tonight's update, what tonight's updates do is make them more visible and more consistently applied.

Operational excellence is about an organization what they can deliver.

Event quality, experienced organizers, a mission that aligns with what CECA is here to do.

Can you execute?

Have you before?

So that we stay grounded in our core purpose.

It's important to revisit the CECA mission statement.

To assist the city in further special events and artistic cultural experiences that support an inclusive community that values diversity for Naperville and its visitors.

Each SECA application is measured to the standard and ensure we're investing in experiences that reflect our city's values.

Fiscal discipline is about financial health, strong management, diverse revenue sources, a plan for long-term solvency.

We're stewards of stewards of public dollars.

We need to know the investment is sound.

And community impact is about Neighborville.

Does this event serve the community?

Who attends?

Is there a real commitment to diversity and accessibility?

These criteria apply to every applicant, everyone, regardless of how long they've been with us, how large the event is, or how well known it is in the community.

Consistency is what makes this process fair.

I also want to mention that the commission explored implementing a formal scoring system.

However, given the wide range of programs supported by CECA, it has been challenging to develop a method that is both fair and equitable.

As a result, the commission agreed to continue to review applications based on overall strength of each proposal using these three pillars.

What we are building instead is a criteria-anchored judgment, clear standards, consistently applied with documented reasoning.

I believe that serves our community better.

At this point, I'd like to transition to Director Marcotus, who will guide us through our administrative topics for tonight.

We'll now move into the administrative section.

This portion of the presentation covers the commission's internal policy and process work over the past several months.

Some of these items are administrative in nature, important housekeeping updates intended to improve clarity, consistency, and program administration rather than introduce new policy direction.

We're presenting these items as a package for council concurrence and do not anticipate that each will require individual discussion, though we are happy to answer questions as needed.

The commission has identified four specific administrative updates, and I'd like to walk through each briefly.

First, an additional review meeting has been added after the November public applicant session.

This gives the Commission dedicated time to address follow-up questions before making allocation recommendations, improving the quality of our deliberations.

Second, we have drafted clarifying language on religious and cultural event eligibility.

I want to be transparent about what this language does and does not do.

It protects culturally rich events, Diwali celebrations, Cross Kindle market, cultural dance performances from being disqualified by an overly broad exclusion.

It does not open the door to religious advocacy or worship-based events.

Eligibility is evaluated based on the intent, content, and presentation of the event.

Third, federal 501c3 law already prohibits political campaign activity, and the commission confirmed that SECA policy will continue to align with these requirements, prohibiting applicants from participating in or supporting political campaigns on behalf of any candidate or political party.

Fourth, a non-compliance comp non-compliance consequence framework has been formalized.

This is straightforward accountability.

Recipients who do not fulfill grant obligations have clear notice of the consequences, which may include withholding of awarded grant funds, ineligibility for future SECA funding opportunities, and referral of unpaid balances to collections.

Attendance requirements for the public comment meeting have been clarified, and applicants requesting more than $25,000 or new applicants are required to have a re representative present.

Does council have any questions on these four items before we proceed?

Saying none.

Go ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you so much to the staff for the great presentation.

And I want to give a shout out to the staff as well as to the commission for working so hard for all the applications.

We get almost like around 100 applications.

And then this uh commission shortlist 8085 applications and work on those things.

And friends, it takes a lot of time.

Takes a lot of uh research work before approving, or before presenting to the city council members.

So I just wanted to give a shout out and appreciate all the commissioners and the staff who has been working for all of us.

And recently I have attended some of the events and I have seen firsthand information how amazing this events are.

I like on the weekend I was there at a gentleman's bike rally.

Around 100 bikes were there, and I could see so many families coming together on that day early in the morning at 10 o'clock, enjoying the bike.

Small kids were there, families, and also getting a lot of business to local uh downtown businesses.

I saw a lot of people, those who came for that, they were getting into coffee shops, having their breakfast, a lot of things were happening there.

So thank you so much for doing that.

I have also attended an Asian Heritage Month Culture event, and I was amazed to see some 300-400 people coming together again on an afternoon on a Sunday, and I saw the diversity on the stage as well as in the crowd was amazing.

I always share my thoughts that you know when you buy a flower, red flower, yellow or any other color, it looks great.

But when you have multiple color flowers, that looks amazing, and that's what I have first-hand information I've seen on Sunday because of Sika commission and staff, what you people have been doing.

So thank you so much to everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you, man.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you.

Uh, can you kind of discuss a little bit uh how you got to the 2.51?

Um, I know we gave you we increased the cap here uh at the council, but just so the public understands, and that may be a question for Ray.

That might be a Ray question.

Director Munch.

Very much finance director.

Uh, so if you recall, uh, during this last budget process, we evaluated some options um around the future funding of NCTV 17, and one of those options was to increase uh annual funding allocation through the SECA um city obligation, so the city obligation or the SIGA cap was increased to accommodate that uh to the 2.51 million that's referenced in the presentation.

As the questions, I'm curious.

I noticed I did I just did the math is about 36% of the overall um food and beverage, and I'm just wondering if is there a consideration of just keep making that cap somewhat associated with a certain percentage, because as you know, if the food and beverage for some reason goes down, uh I don't know if the 2.5 one would be great.

We would work for us based off of those numbers, or maybe it could go higher, but um, I don't know.

It seems like that might be a consideration as as we go through and um we plan while you're doing the budget.

Any thoughts on that?

So the the funding level is is absolutely a policy decision for the council.

Um, the the SECA cap includes an annual escalator of two percent or annual CPI increase, whichever's less, um, in terms of the balance between uh SICA funding and and non-Sika uses in the food and beverage funds.

Certainly uh we've reached a point where the other uses um outweigh the amount that goes to SECA, those are important uses, it's additional funding to police and fire pensions, it's drawing down our debt service requirements, social service grants, things of that nature.

Um if we found ourselves in a position where food and beverage tax was declining significantly, which outside of 2020, we've never experienced that.

Uh, I think we would be in a position where we could reevaluate those uses and the various percentages, uh, but based on the history, um, we we don't see a scenario in which that is likely to play out.

Thank thanks for the analysis, thank you.

Councilman McRu?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um back to your your timeline, uh I was hoping to get kind of some more breadth of of history on the program, kind of help us guide guide us on how the programs evolved.

Um, you know, specifically I was curious, um, I don't think that the program started um with city obligations being a part of the grants.

I could be wrong on that.

That's just been something I've has been said and maybe it's assumed, but would you be able to pinpoint?

Was there a time where the city only offered um city services and not obligations, and did that change at some point?

Councilman to clarify, are you you're referring to city services versus operational?

Operational, operational, I'm sorry.

That's remove obligations.

I mean, next question is about obligations, so yeah.

So you're asking between city services and operations and operations, yes.

Um that's a good question.

I don't I don't know the answer to that.

I as far as I know, I think it's uh we've looked at city services and operations for quite a while now.

I don't know that there's ever been a delineation between when that started.

We can look at that and get back to you.

Um and then just my other comment on uh Maryland's counsel about the uh city obligations.

Um that wasn't what we directed uh staff to do.

Um I I felt like that I think you're right, there should be a bigger conversation there.

Um just from a point of transparency, um, you know, I'm just searching around on the city website.

You know, if if a resident were to say, well, over half of that food and beverage or half of that allocation goes to obligations.

It's not really easy to find out.

You know, I'm sure uh Director Munch could rattle off uh what those obligations are for.

I mean we added quite a bit more for NCTV this past year, I know, but um I would ask that that those uh allocation.

It's pretty easy to find the who was allocated for the grant applications, um, but it's not it's almost like a separate website.

So um, but uh anyway, I do think we should have that discussion at at some point, but that isn't the direction that we we gave staff.

Um I think we're exclusively talking about the grant process.

So, Mr.

Krieger, you had some information?

Uh sure.

Just uh there's a little bit of history when um uh the SECA fund was created, or the food and beverage tax fund was created and the SICA program was initiated.

Um it was a split of both city services um as well as some operational, you know, probably the uh clearest example on the city services side would have been um for city staff or rip vest, and on the operational side, it would be the dollars that went to the municipal band, just for examples.

Director, can you go back to slide eight for me?

It was it was slide eight.

So under the noncompliance policy um or in general, I'm just gonna ask with regard to operational expenses where the city um seeker grants would be to reimburse people for operational expenses or organizations for operational expenses, not for city services.

If an organization for whatever reason um goes sideways, chooses not to pay a vendor, um, or the organization implodes.

I mean, does the city have any liability?

Is there anything to indemnify us from vendors coming after us for payment?

I don't think so.

We're a re it's a reimbursement program, so we wouldn't we wouldn't reimburse we we can see receipts before we reimburse the money to it to an event.

So I don't I don't see any liability there.

Okay.

All right, seeing no other questions.

Okay, we now turn to the key topic section, the four items where we are specifically seeking council direction tonight.

I want to reframe this section briefly.

These are not problems with SECA, they are places where the program has reached a natural decision point and where council's guidance will help us move forward with clarity and confidence.

The four topics are the funding, the future funding structure for Memorial Day Parade, the change of scope review process, formalizing a path to organizational self-sufficiency, and standardizing parade operations.

This matrix is intended to serve as a roadmap for tonight's discussion, illustrating the transition from the current state of SECA to a future state.

It outlines the items before council and high and highlights the key decision points where we are seeking direction.

The Memorial Day Parade is a long-standing civic event that provides community benefit by honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country and fostering a shared sense of community and remembrance.

In 2024 and 2025, total city services costs for the event exceeded the annual SICA allocation.

In both years, the remaining balance was covered using unspent SECA funds available.

The current 2026 estimate is 40,280 with an anticipated funding gap of approximately $4,028.

Prior to 2024, SECA allocations consistently covered the full cost of city services for this event.

The funding gap has expanded 37% since 2024.

The increase in cost is largely driven by enhanced security measures, holiday overtime pay requirements for staff, and the need to outsource certain police services.

It should also be noted that the Memorial Day Parade does not generate revenue to offset their costs.

Given the civic nature of this event and its consistent reliance on city services, the commission recommends that the Memorial Day Parade be considered a city obligation rather than discretionary.

If directed to do so, staff would return with the specific budget proposal for formal council action.

The question here is whether to authorize staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund the Memorial Day Parade as a city obligation.

We'll pause here and get your feedback.

So council members, the commission um is seeking council direction on whether to authorize staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund the Memorial Day Parade as a clear city obligation, which would waive any sort of future application.

It would just always be there.

So we'd be looking for, we've got some discussion.

Councilman Halzer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, as I mentioned in a prior meeting, I think this is a great idea.

Uh it's a cornerstone event in Naperville.

Um, is um perhaps in the future we might want to define a few other cornerstone events?

It's hard to imagine in April, where we don't have a Labor Day Parade, hard to imagine in Aprilville where we don't have a St.

Patrick's Day Parade, hopefully hard to imagine April in the future where we don't have an India Day Parade.

Um so I don't know if that's five or something like that, um, but just something to think about, not tonight, but possibly for the future.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, can we get a a yes or no on this without making a financial commitment?

How does that work?

Mr.

Krieger?

Uh yeah, um, this uh really just directs staff to go back, um, examine it and bring something back to city council.

So there would be there will be no five, there will be no financial obligations that anyone's locked into based on your actions tonight.

Okay.

Um seeing no other questions, is there a show of hands in support of the question?

And I'll repeat it again.

Um SECA commission seeking counsel direction on whether to authorize staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund the Memorial Day Parade as a city obligation.

This uh hands in the air would say yes, um and then I will call for the no's in a moment.

So those in favor signify by raising your hand in the air.

I see nine hands in the air.

Those against I think we know the answer.

We have nine hands in the ear on on item number one.

Okay, thank you.

This item this next item clarifies what constitutes a change of scope under CECA and how these situations are handled.

At a high level, a change of scope is sub is a substantive change to the purpose, nature, scale, or primary components of a funded project compared to what was originally approved.

Routine administrative adjustments such as changes in date, venue within Naperville, or minor programming updates are not considered changes of scope.

For instance, an event that changes from an outdoor festival to a ticketed indoor concert is a scope change.

A venue switch within Naperville is not.

The intent here is to ensure that funded projects remain consistent with what council approved while still allowing reasonable flex flexibility in implementation.

Any proposed changes would still would first be vetted by the special events team.

If a change of scope is identified, council would be notified via manager's memo or Friday confidential along with any recommended next steps.

And at this point, again, we are seeking your co concurrence with this approach.

Any discussion?

Councilman Gibson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh from my understanding of this one, this is just a notification to us.

But if we're notified, do we have a mechanism to rectify?

Would I mean would that have to come to a council agenda and go vote?

Okay.

It would depend on the on the situation.

I um if there's any funding involved, that would definitely have to come to vote.

Um most of most items I can't I can't imagine that we've ever had to change in funding, um, but most of it would just be in uh notification.

Go ahead, councilman.

Thanks.

So is it a foul?

Because in my mind, one of the big issues this is not necessarily additional funding, but if an event is shrinking in size, say a three-day event down to a two-day event, where we would be wanting to decrease the funding.

So would that just that we're notified and then we just reach out to staff and ask about next steps?

Go ahead.

Yeah, we would we would um notify council and then we would get any feedback that you would provide.

Okay, it's not worth formalizing something more standard.

Mr.

Krieger.

The um uh what what I would propose is um once that it goes out to council, we would have a uh a finite kind of review period where if someone took exception to the commission's uh intended actions, they would notify me, and then we could get a place on the next agenda.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman White.

And thank you.

I have a similar question.

Um as I'm looking at it, if a change of scope could potentially be more of an uh an intent or of what you're trying to uh to do with the event, or it could just be a several different things that could potentially be.

Uh to the point where I'm almost suggesting should it go back through Sika to be reassessed?

Because if if it changed the scope changes enough, you may not have approved it at the same level you did before, uh, and now there's funding out there that we have to consider that could be reimbursed or come back to the to the fund, and it could have been used for other uh uh users.

Yeah, change of scope requests go to go to seeka for review.

And would and that would be a yay, a yes, no or a recommendation to reduce funding or any any of those types of things based off of what that change of scope might be.

Once funding is approved once the allocations are approved from city council we we don't change the funding allocations those would have to go back to city council for any amendments.

Yeah I I think that's a concern for me I think you know it based on the situation we should be able to reassess what was granted to a particular organization um and make a decision based off of that I don't think that that funding should be there just because it's already been approved because it was approved based on um certain circumstances and now the circumstances have changed I think it should be reassessed and uh I wouldn't recommend given more but definitely uh if it means that it should be less then we should be able to have that option uh to consider that yeah I'd agree with my colleague um I I think a a scope change um that has not been seen by the city council um and approved by the city council theoretically is significant and I think the the seeker commission um while they are are trusted to to weigh in it and and hear these things in the end the CICA commission's recommendations ultimately come to the dias here for a global recommendation and without that global recommendation we could theoretically be approving something that we never got a chance to look at depending on how much scope change in creep there is Councilman Kelly thank you mayor uh just for frame reference and and you may not know but can you guesstimate for us over the past few years how many of these changes scope do you tend to see in a year is there a handful every single years or one a year is there only one every few years how how common or rare are we looking at say about three to four per year.

Do you have any examples for this current year or last year that would fit one example for this this uh for 2026 was a um this park after dark give us a little more what was the nature of the change.

Yeah my apologies uh the perk after arc event um went um scaled down some days um based on availability um so the application that was submitted went from I can't recall they have three weekends um to a smaller offering um for this particular 26 year same number of vendors um number of of hours same artist same group um still during twenty twenty six um just push back um the amount of events like offerings number of days right so my thought is I I agree with what uh both of the last two comments were if it's three or four a year then maybe we do need some policy on that if it's one every three or four years or or what you just described I don't I don't know that we really need that on a council agenda necessarily uh so I I could maybe kind of go either way it just depends on how often and to what degree you think we would be considering this.

Councilwoman Jane thank you mayor um I was just curious how do we get notified of a scope if scope of um change we would notify you through manager's memo or fighting confidential or how is staff normally notified is it the organizations that um disclose that there's been a change of scope or is it community members or how does that go about they reach out to me, special events coordinator for that message.

Alright, thank you.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Matt.

So I just wanted to uh you know, isn't from uh Chair, Judy Braunhood, if you can comment on this change of scope.

I think you have been on the board for many yes.

If you can, yeah, please.

Chairwoman broadhead.

Thank you, because I was just passing Jake a note.

Um, yeah, I would say that um the change of scope for the park after dark is the largest one, largest change I've I've seen.

Most of them are very minor.

Um they change the date, they change um I don't know, something something very small can somebody think of can change the venue.

They're you know, so we'd say three that's the biggest one I can remember in the past five years, is that uh compression of time and um there was quite a robust discussion about it in the in the SECA meeting because it did seem to be pretty significant, but uh on the whole they're they're pretty, you know, they're pretty minor.

I don't really think you'd be all that interested in some of the some of the changes, but I think it's probably a good point that if it's a you know a big change, and um certainly SECA or staff thinks that um they really shouldn't need that larger amount of money because they're reducing the event, then you know certainly they think that's not a bad thing at all for council to look at.

Okay, thank you, Chairwoman.

Just one more question.

Do you believe that the the CECA commission could further define what the um the change of scope could look like, like minor change, major change, similar to our our zoning codes and things like that that might meet the expectation of needing to go for some sort of counseling?

Yes, and I think probably a trigger for that would be um uh length of event and uh especially event that was fairly you know well funded and and expensive to start with.

So yes, certainly could do that.

Thank you.

Councilman White?

Um Chairwoman.

Thank you.

Um I would uh be curious, is it possible maybe for us to expand the maybe the noncompliance piece?

Because I could see where these two could be connected.

If the scope is so great, it may constitute something that I'm most of us might think we're non-compliance from based off of what they originally submitted.

Uh any thoughts on that?

Um yeah, I mean certainly, and uh as you see in the report and um uh what you see on the screen, that there is not really a mechanism right now for non-compliance.

Um, so for instance, if uh, you know, somebody does something who's received a grant that is clearly against the rules in some way, um, we might hear complaints about it, but and that would probably be discussed in a meeting and uh considered if that same organization applied again.

Um but yeah, I don't see why not.

Is there anybody else who has any questions?

I don't see any lights.

Thank you, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Krieger, with regard to the the manager's memo or Friday confidential from a transparency perspective, I could see that like a public safety concern that pops up could clearly be something you would want to put up in the private or in the uh Friday confidential, but is there any reason that these changes couldn't go in just the standard manager's memorandum so the public has transparency and access to see what's going on?

I I can see no reason why they couldn't be in the manager's memorandum.

All right.

Alright seeing no other questions, um does the council concur with the process and um first of all based upon some of the the comments that were made here um is there a receptiveness to the the major versus the minor uh classifications of what these change of scopes could look like is council comfortable with that I'm seeing some nodded heads all right so um are we comfortable with the process and then uh having the SECA deficient uh seek a commission further define major and minor changes of scope um and how the process would work those who would be in favor of that signify by raising your hand I see nine hands in the air all right on number three formalizing a path to organizational self-sufficiency this is one of the key policy questions before council tonight at its core the question is this to what extent should SECA funded initiatives be expected to demonstrate progress toward long term financial sustainability and how should that influence funding decisions over time we are not recommending a formal sunset policy that option was evaluated and rejected for its administrative complexity and potential to create in inequities and we are not pro proposing to phase out longstanding organizations simply because they have received funding over multiple years.

What we are proposing is that financial self sufficiency be given greater weight in the evaluation process for returning applicants not as a strict endpoint but as a demonstrated effort to diversify revenue strengthen operations and reduce long term reliance on SECA funding.

Again this is not necessarily a destination but progress.

This expectation applies to all returning applicants large and small and is intended to strengthen organizations not penalize longevity.

So the policy question for council is this should demonstrated progress toward long term financial sustainability carry greater formal weight in future SECA funding decisions?

And I will pause here again for feedback.

Councilman McRoom thank you mayor um yeah point bullet three is what I'm most interested in um for me personally I've always thought of I believe the program started uh with that intention as as to BC money and to get it to get a program off the ground and um so I'm I'm absolutely in favor of um I guess some kind of broad policy uh emphasizing that um I think there's probably some different ways you can go to incentivize that or encourage it um you know uh maybe maybe a matching or a reduction in in operations or you know I I even think you know I think you know the SECA commissioners have such a heavy lift when they're going through these applications and um you know part of it is I I know you're trying to um you know uh ask questions and and encourage these uh organizations to become self-sufficient um and that seems like a lot of work to to monitor and and track that and uh you know I I know there's different um you know county uh grant programs in different cities and and some some um government bodies who have you know grant programs like this will um you know do a two year on or a three year on and one year off um you know I've talked to some of my colleagues I don't know if I have a lot of buy in but I I feel like that would be a uh one solution one idea um but um I I I'm very wary of a uh tax fair funded grant program where um we kind of just go into this um kind of slippery slope of uh it's a permanent dependency and I I don't want organizations to just kind of look at it as a every year we're kind of planning for this we this is what we got last year we'll probably get this next year and it's just a part of their budgeting process as as an expectation so I'm absolutely in favor of of something uh there with three Councilman Holzar.

Thank you mayor um I uh look at this proposal as um something really great intent and uh councilman's point I I think the idea is not to create a permanent dependency when people have great new ideas we want them to have the motivation to continue to engage the community look for private sources of funding um all of that I am concerned about the wording here and this being a bit of a one size fits all approach um and for anyone who is familiar with the the nonprofit world most people have probably done something with a nonprofit here so much of the energy and focus right now if you really want to become self-sustaining is is going for these big national grants right getting the hundred thousand dollar grant from from some brand writing has become a profession and for some of the nonprofits in our community I could see that you know the Children's Museum settlement some of these groups are have the scale to be able to do it.

But when I think about the Naperville JCs or the VFW, some of these groups the value they're providing and really my hope is that their focus is on helping helping people build community and people who may otherwise not have a positive place to be on a Tuesday night and those people may not have the money to fund big events.

And then I I think there's also structural differences different groups have different profiles so I let's go with veterans groups right American Legion largely founded by World War II veterans VFW largestly founded by the Anam era veterans from a draft era.

I think it's it's unrealistic to expect them to have larger funding sources as their population largely is just getting older right so I think to have a blanket city policy and say hey our expectation from the dais from the city council level is that you're moving towards a certain financial position is just a little too heavy handed for my comfort.

I do like the idea though of you really should try to get what you can given your abilities and you should try your best so you know I'm open to hear if other people have better ways of wording this or just any ideas in the dais.

I might after hearing anyone else's comments propose a modification of this idea that says something like we expect groups to make a legitimate effort to seek private funding to the best of their ability in addition to supplementing you know when they make an ask for for government funds.

Thank you mayor.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson thank you I I agree with Councilman Holzauer I think he worded I was having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this so I believe he worded it better than I am going to but my initial reaction hearing this is that it um it's gonna harm the smaller groups more I I know it was mentioned the fear of taking away funding from the larger groups but our largest allocations now by a large margin you know go to well known events like JC's last bling and West Suburban Irish.

I got some of those wrong don't get mad at me.

But big ones that do have strong fundraising pools and I see Sika as a way of making sure that we can have other groups that maybe don't have the profile in our community of some of these larger groups have a chance to share their culture or their arts with our community and I I worry that pushing them early on to self-sustain um could get less voices at the table.

So I I kind of bulk at this suggestion in general.

I maybe something like a proportion um of funding has to come from outside sources or a proportion that grows um but I'm not quite on board with this.

I'd be willing to see what SECA comes back in terms of a formal I know this is a direction, not a final action.

Um but I'd like to see something a little different.

Councilman.

Yeah, thank you.

Um yeah, I under I understand what Councilman McBroom is saying, uh, because I do want I think it's important that organizations kind of have some skin in the game when when they're applying for these things, but I think it's important to also understand that we have organizations, maybe some of the smaller ones that councilwoman uh Gibson just said that are or they're organizations where no one's being paid, there's no salary, they're just volunteers and they're willing to put their time and effort into putting on an event that benefits the community.

And they're not and and if we start making we could potentially put a burden on them to now on top of all the things you're doing to it to volunteer to help out and put this event on.

Now we require you to go out and fundraise and do all of these other things, and if they don't meet that criteria, we end up losing the event.

And I don't think that's good for the community as well.

It's a it's a it's a lose lose in that particular uh situation.

So I don't think um I think you if we set it up here, it's we have to be careful having a one-size-fits-all when it comes to this.

So I I think the commission's probably gonna have to look at these organizations, these events independently to see what makes sense in there.

That may mean we have winners and losers in in that I I don't know, but I would be curious to see what uh the commission comes up with.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know, uh hearing some of the comments, I I guess I maybe I'm just dense um or unfamiliar with some of the like smaller organizations and front ra fundraising, but um, you know, like the uh JC's events tend to be bigger, so they'll obviously cost more.

So you could certainly make an argument for um a potential to raise a lot of money, but at the same time, realistically, JCs are smaller organization as well.

Um I mean that being said, with like smaller organizations or startups or whatever, or well, for example, like off the top of my head, the mural um, but I think costing 2500 not a lot of money, um, had um they come to council or somebody to go, uh, hey, I'm raising this amount of money as opposed to Sika, I would have been happy to and hopefully other people from council would have been happy to donate uh money toward that um smaller events like that uh where they're looking for private funding.

So I I don't know, I I guess I kind of think that think about this conversely where if you're smaller and needing, you know, twenty five hundred dollars, ten thousand dollars, and you'd uh go to I don't know, door to door or whatever, asking for help for this event, um it it certainly easier, but and then coupled that with if you're going back to Sika every year asking for um the same amount of money, hopefully you'd be able to, even if you're put into the spotlight and able to get that amount of money in the first year, hopefully more people knowing about small organizations and small amounts of money would be able to uh raise that some portion or reduce the portion uh in the following years.

So I don't know.

These are just some of my thoughts on it, but I'd I'd certainly like to see if uh Seeker or other folks had opinions about perhaps reducing it on like the third year like Councilman McBroom had mentioned or reducing it by some portion um in subsequent years.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I agree with us re-f reemphasizing and trying to bring it back to back to supporting uh young, new young organization, new events, uh C funding.

I worry that if we keep it too abstract and subjective, then it's gonna be hard for our commissioners to weigh it.

Um, and so I would like to see something a little bit more defined, um, and maybe it needs to be more nuanced in terms of like age of the event um and past a certain number of years, then it it's it's assessed or weighed differently in terms of self-sustainability.

Um, but I worry about us not having some rubric, some some clarity in how we communicate what this measurement is gonna look like and how it's gonna be assessed so that organizations know coming in, um, how this is going to be assessed.

Uh whether they've been with us where they're coming to us for the first time or if they've been coming to us for many years.

I just think we need to be really clear on um how this is being weighed.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um good and interesting comments from any everyone.

I I'm trying to kind of take everything I've heard and see where there's some consensus, and I'm not sure where it is.

Um I'm hearing concern about this smaller groups and concern about the larger groups.

I mean, not to talk too much just about the JCs, but I do have concern there, you know, they're arguably the longest running event, might get the most amount of money.

But if you cut down or cut out their um grant, that really could put the last fling at risk.

Um, you know, they are relatively small, smaller than they were.

Uh don't know mostly younger people don't know that they've got the ability to raise the kind of money they need to put on an event of that size.

Uh, but if you say we'll keep giving you a large award every year for for decades, I think it's hard to say to you what regardless of the size of other newer groups.

Well, we've been giving it to you for a few years, and so you've got to cut back.

I it's just really tricky, I think.

Um, I'm wondering if it could be just a uh more formal question.

So it could be a data point for SECA commissioners to sort of subjectively factor into their decision making without, and maybe this goes against what's being recommended or asked for, but without giving uh formal counsel guidance to SECA to say you have to consider it for this number of years or X number of dollars or percentages.

I just think that gets really tough and and you know we had the similar conversation on the India Day uh topic of I just think you start running the risk of losing these events, they're just more and more difficult to put on, more and more expensive every year, and if we have a formal requirement that could result in decreased funding, in theory that's great, and you open the door for new events, but I just think you run the risk of of losing the ones we've got and and you might not get them back, or you might not have new events to replace it.

So um where my head is at is maybe you uh and maybe it's already there, forgive me if it is, but maybe you formalize it as a question on the application so that you you sort of force the applicants to think about it and provide that information and hopefully you get them to think about going down that road and you give that information to CA commissioners to consider it in whatever manner they want to consider it without being quite so strict about it.

Um so I don't know if there's support for that or not, but I'm not sure I'm hearing support from Fiverr more for any other kind of formal policy.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I wonder to have uh Commissioner Dalmaier and Commissioner Tsar.

Please come on this day.

Yeah.

Just wonderful here from you as a commissioner what what is your thought on this thing?

Because you have seen this process, you have seen the applications, organizations, and everybody.

So if you can share your thoughts on this.

Yeah.

Uh uh, Arthur Czars here.

The one thing the point of order that in the advocation there already is a question that says, Do you intend to be off of the SECA funding?

Of course, you can imagine every single person says yes.

Uh, so it really doesn't do much.

I I think the the solution is more of a hybrid because we do have legacy events, and for better, for worse, they're dependent on the SECA funding, and you just can't pull the rug out.

But I think the I would like to have the secret commission have the opportunity to come back with some options because you could take uh because some of the arguments were here that we're gonna lose your big events like the last thing we're gonna lose their funding.

Well, that could happen already with the SECA commission if we all say zero, and then it would go to the council.

Uh, I think that the solution would be having a smaller portion of the budget within SECA that's dedicated for the seed funding because I'd much rather see smaller events receive 100% of their funding because five thousand dollars to a startup event can make or break everything, and they know that they have like maybe certain requirements, and the rest of the funding is just the legacy funding where we do the regular SICA you know discussions we have.

But I think a hybrid where we take a smaller part of part of the budget, uh very small, maybe like $50,000 or so that's allocated for us to determine uh for 100% funding for the smaller events if that's helps.

I can't add a whole lot more to what others said, but the one thing that that I do when we look at these uh organizations is what are they doing to go out and get sponsorships?

What are they doing to try to get self-sustaining because a lot of them don't do that?

Uh and there's money out there.

Uh as you know, I worked for a bank for years, and they lined up looking for whether it was 50, you know, thousand dollars or five hundred dollars, you know, and organizations do support that.

So I think what we should be doing is encouraging these organizations to look at sponsorships and support, and in some cases, it may be uh selling a ticket and having some control over uh coming to the event and paying a fee.

I know that that was the JCs for a while, and then that just became too complicated to uh administer.

But I think other funding sources, whether it's sponsorships, uh whether it's charging to come to the event are all things that should be looked at.

And I think we as commissioners have to be a little bit more diligent and asking a lot of those hard questions.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Thank you.

So, Mayor, can I add something on this?

So I have seen in the last one year that uh organizations are over dependent on Sika, and sometimes when they don't get the funding, immediately they react, and they put the responsibility on CD or SICA commission that because of them, we are not able to host event, or we are not able to work on this thing.

So maybe it should have some responsibility, you know, on them also that they initiate something like uh Commissioner Tom Mars said sponsorship, yes, and uh Nipper will definitely have a lot of local businesses who can support such nonprofit organizations who can sponsor support, whatever they can do it, but some responsibility on nonprofit organizations so that you know they also have some funding, and then they get support from the city.

So that's what I feel, you know.

Thank you.

Now, back in 2004, I was sitting out in the in the audience when councilwoman Ellingston sat up here and was advocating for what back then was the beginnings of the C what was now known as the C coordinates.

I was a member of the NAPO development partnership, and we were looking at the implications of a food and beverage tax that had never been passed in our community before.

But one of the compelling arguments that the councilwoman had was that we had events like Ribbest and the last spring that I want to refer to as charitable reinvestment events.

These were not for profits that were large-scale events, they raised a lot of money, and then they donated the proceeds back into the community to other charities.

And those events are now few and and far between, but councilwoman Ellingson was really beyond her her time with her thought process.

She's like, hey, let's help these groups donate more and let's come up with a mechanism to pay for the police and the fire and public works and even the park district people who help support these large-scale events, and then these groups can donate a lot of money back into our community and support all the different charities.

Well, we're down to basically a couple left.

And I I think you know, my guidance or advice to the SECA commission would be to look at events that could be classified in that charitable reinvestment space that are going to turn around with the proceeds that they receive and then hopefully lever that into something bigger and give back to the community in other ways.

Those groups that can come in with some of their own fundraising, or maybe even perhaps say a weight for a match.

You know, if if I put in 5,000, maybe I could get a matching um fund of 5,000 on the operational cost side.

But um it is a tough question, and I think there's there's a lot of ways to get them there, but I know we've got very smart members of the SECA commission that might be able to hear all of these different pieces of advice from the dais and and maybe get us to a lot further down the road.

Uh Councilman Halzauer.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I really appreciated the mayor's comments there about especially about the the charitable reinvestment, right?

If you're thinking about some events through that lens, um I think the standard that's on the screen is is probably counterproductive to those.

Um I also really liked Commissioner Myers' uh comments that he asks organizations, you know.

Hey, I see that you didn't ask anybody in the private sector for money, why not?

Um, because I think it is a very fair ask if we're talking about taxpayer dollars.

Um, Mr.

Zards, I thought provided Commissioner Zards provided some useful insight there that there is a question on the application right now, but the way I heard it, it's almost like a gotcha question.

It's like, hey, do you plan to be totally self-sufficient someday?

I mean, that's there's no good way to answer that question.

I mean, that's just not realistic for most organizations, so it's almost like not even gathering data that would be extremely helpful.

Um, all of that to say um I I didn't hear a majority of support for the highlighted option that's on the screen.

Um I liked where Councilman Kelly was going with his compromise.

So I wanted to float the language and maybe ask for hands in the air, mayor, if we could ask SECA to think about um including something on their questionnaire on their rubric that they give to groups, um, where they ask groups to describe the demonstrated effort that they've put forth to seek private donations to supplement SECA funds and let the groups go from there.

And that's the entirety of it, correct?

So that would replace what's on the screen with correct, just flagging the commissioners that we'd like for them to ask groups in their applications to show a demonstrated effort to seek private donations to supplement their seeker funds.

I'm happy to to test that sure question, but I I think there's additional questions that we could also throw on top of it.

So you want to try it just that one question to see if there's support for it?

Um sure, and then just and then just ask for hands in the ear for multiple questions.

Okay, better way to build.

Great, thank you, Mayor.

All right, those in support of Councilman Halzauer's suggestion, raise your hands in the ear.

Okay, there's nine hands in support of of that request.

Um I'd like to offer the um idea that the charitable reinvestment events should be identified and offered some more weight or at least a a different consideration than those events that don't turn around and reinvest into the community through charitable donations.

I'd be looking for hands in the air in support of that.

So I think we got seven on that one.

Anything else, Councilman Kelly, you got one?

You want to throw one up?

Okay.

Is there anything else that we want to put out there for SECA to go back and work on?

How about the the hybrid model that uh Commissioner Zards mentioned with regard to a set aside for the first time seed money?

Councilman Holzer?

Um thank you, Mayor.

I I will say conceptually, I really liked it.

Um my hope would actually be if maybe they could come back with some more uh meet on that.

I guess maybe in a future presentation they come back to us.

Um, one of the concerns I can tell you I have is um if there's a defined number, I worry about that starting to become um again one size fits all or a little inflexible, right?

If it's hey, it's $50,000 of seed money or whatever.

Who knows what inflation does to that or changes in the nonprofit landscape?

So that would be my feedback would be rather than take a vote on it.

Right now, I'd like them to think about it a little more.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council McKelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, follow-up question I'd have for that too.

If they're gonna come back to us, uh kind of similar to one of my earlier questions.

Just some data on how many first-time events would fit into that bucket in any given year on average, and roughly how much uh funding is requested by those groups that would fit into that first-timer kind of bucket, just so we have a rough idea, you know, what are we looking at?

Would 50,000 make sense or not?

Uh, just to give a little context to it.

This year there were 15 new initiatives, and we're checking to see what that total amount was.

The amount for CY26 new initiatives was roughly 460,000 requested.

Okay.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, this slide addresses what may seem like an operational issue, but it has direct implications for public safety, city services costs, and how SECA funds are administered.

Today, each parade in Naperville operates on a flexible event-specific route with city vehicles used to manage access points along the route.

While that approach has worked, it also creates variability in planning, staffing, and cost from event to event.

We are presenting four options for council's consideration tonight.

You'll see the graphic reflects a 100% safety rating.

While no approach can fully eliminate risk, this is intended to illustrate the relative increase in safety these options are designed to achieve.

Option one is to implement a standardized parade route, establishing a consistent route to across route across all parades to improve safety planning, streamline traffic management, and create greater cross cost predictability.

Option two is to purchase dedicated anti-vehicle barriers to replace the use of city vehicles at access points.

This would strengthen route protection while improving operational efficiency.

Option three is to pursue both, combine the standardized route and dedicated barriers.

Together, these provide the most comprehensive approach to improving parade safety, operational consistency, and long-term cost management.

Option four is to maintain the current approach and continue using event-specific routes with city vehicles.

The reason this matters in the SECA context is that parade-related city services costs are funded through the same limited resource pool that supports events and other initiatives.

Greater consistency and predictability in parade operations improves our ability to manage those costs and steward funding more effectively.

We are seeking council's direction on which approach staff should move forward with.

Council?

Well, I'll weigh in just a little bit.

Um, have you received any feedback from the Memorial Day parade committee on this proposal?

And the reason I bring this up is that parade historically has been the shortened route due to the aging population of a lot of our veterans who who can't walk and and they want to proudly walk and they should be proudly walking in in the event that's there for them.

Um and it also historically lands at Central Park where Memorial Day services are held uh for an hour or more afterwards every year.

So have have they weighed in on this proposal at all?

They have not at this point, and we would really um include them in any discussions in terms of um any changes in parade route.

Okay, and just to follow up, has the downtown association weighed in on it as well with with not yet, no.

Okay.

Councilman White.

Thank you, Mayor.

The um I I like the idea of the standardized routes.

I think that part of that you should be able to maybe make it smaller, but not increase it.

So for example, if you want your parade uh route to be a little bit shorter, maybe based on some of the comments the mayor just made with uh with uh senior veterans, uh that might be something to consider as well.

Um the other thing I would uh would add, and I I spoke to the chief on this, police chief.

I noticed along our routes um along Mill Street specifically, we've got barriers there, we've got the roads blocked, but I look at the the the house right next to the street, and all that it's one wanted to actually interfere, they all have to do is just drive through someone's yard and and they could you know do some serious damage.

So uh, I'm by getting in the weeds from a tactical standpoint, but it's something I think we ought to consider uh with those those homes where it's almost as if we think well, they're not gonna drive across the the yard because it's gonna break the law.

Well, they're in there to drive through the parade.

So I don't think they're gonna really consider that.

So uh this uh this take a look at that and see if we can improve on on that piece as well.

But I I like option three.

Thank you.

Councilman Saiyan.

Thank you, Mayor.

So as an elected official as a city, public safety is our top priority.

And I can see the answer here.

Option three.

It is really very easy.

And as uh Councilman Benny White said, shorting the you know, parade distance and all those things.

I think that will really help.

I have walked in multiple parades and I've seen it is very long parade, especially during the winter time, and uh I see, you know, if you can make it short on standard route dedicated by it.

I think that will really help us.

Yeah, thank you.

Councilman Collie.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

A quick question for staff before uh talking about one of the four options for the anti-vehicle barriers, just process-wise, what is the decision you're looking for tonight?

What would the next step be if council's interested in generally going down that road?

Is that part of the 2027 budget?

Is that really part of SECA or when when would that decision be made and how?

Yeah, it would be part of the 2027 budget.

We'd have to go through the procurement process.

Okay, and would those potentially be ready for 2027 parades, or is it a longer lead time than that?

Possibly longer, probably we're looking at 2028, I would imagine.

Okay.

So for tonight, you just want general direction on if we want you to consider that as part of the budget process essentially.

Correct.

Okay.

So I so I would I I would certainly be in favor of that.

I'm thinking most people will be.

Um, but between the four options, I think I would lean towards at least for right now, without having any input from any of the we've only got three downtown parades for 26, at least St.

Patrick's Labor and Memorial Day.

If you haven't had conversations with any of those three event organizers for right now, I would lean towards just option option two.

I just I just don't know that we're ready for option three yet without those conversations.

I and like the mayor said, I think there's a good reason or there's multiple reasons really why Memorial Day route is what it is.

Um and the St.

Patrick's Day route and the Labor Day parade route are are really identical.

I think one ends maybe half a block further east on border than the other one, just goes all the way to central.

Um, but they're i essentially identical.

So if we really have two logger parades and they're already the same I just don't know that we need council guidance to say we must have a formal standardized route.

Maybe you talk to those two organizers and see if we could match up that last half a block or if they have any plans in the future of deviating from the route they've used over the past few years if they don't and they're they're happy with the current route I would say leave those two alone and and talk to Memorial Day uh organizers at a staff level before you have any guidance from council.

So I'm I'm at number two for right now.

Me as well.

Councilmember thank you mayor.

Uh so is this topic is this purely a security question or is it a logistics question or is there a financial question here or all the above?

Director?

All of the above.

Okay.

Yeah it's it's mostly it's mostly safety um but there would be some cost predictability in there as well.

Okay.

So I'll put the deputy on on the spot does the uh police department have uh concerns about our our current current um approach and uh or have any opinion on these items?

Sorry.

Deputy chief supervising.

Uh yes thank you um I I'd say the vehicle borne attack is one of the highest concerns we have for any of our special events and including parades.

These barriers would definitely be uh a great support system for for our safety going forward.

Okay thank you.

Um I I you know, depending on cost I'd let's I would go with three um look in look into that.

Okay.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you mayor.

Um yeah I guess my preference here I guess would be option one and I guess my only apprehension with the the barriers is uh I mean like councilman councilman white had mentioned even if the the I guess I'd have to see a full plan of like where the barriers would be just to um like councilman white had said if the barriers are at the street then somebody drives through the yard then it's the barriers I guess still aren't gonna help that much.

So I don't know.

I guess I would still have to see what exactly the plan was and where exactly they would be at and how much it would it would cost to look into adding barriers all over a parade route.

So um yeah that being said I I think it might make sense to look at a standardized parade route like uh somebody else said it could always be reduced so uh that's where I'm at.

Thank you.

Councilman Sayed.

Thank you Mayor so Derek so what are the cost implications on all the fold proposals so can you give us some some cost uh impact on this we did not do a full cost analysis on what these would on what the the uh vehicle barriers would be um but I have seen one where it was approximately three hundred thousand dollars um but the the challenge in that is the the estimate that I saw doesn't necessarily um equate to how many we would need um so it's it's a hard comparison to to make okay thank you.

Any other questions?

Alright I I think there's some um mixed feelings on the the dice right now about where we're at um we can test the questions or we can ask for uh staff maybe to address some of the questions that were were brought up like contacting the the downtown groups and communicating with the Memorial Day Parade committee to see where they're at.

I mean, this could be no problem for them um or they could say absolutely not.

I mean, until we know those answers, I I just don't know uh if I'm stuck on number two, and until we know more of those answers.

So um council members, any any thoughts?

Uh do you want to test the questions or are we still kind of mixed right now on our feelings until we hear back from some of those other groups?

Councilwoman Gibson, you were giving me the P sign or number two.

I don't know what I I think I'm for option two.

I think you know, if our police department is telling us that anti-vehicle barriers would make our events safer, and especially against one of the biggest threats we know to our special events.

I think that's a worthwhile expenditure.

I share the concerns about changing the parade route.

I think right now it's pretty straightforward to go from Naperville Central or Naperville North, Naperville Central.

The groups already have the staging all worked out.

I think Memorial Day Parade, keeping in mind, you know, the veterans and like that, but also the schools that have their marching bands.

Um I wasn't in band.

I don't know how much work it is to double the length of your parade.

Um, but I think that would be asking a lot of the kids who really enjoy those parades.

So I don't know if I see much benefit in standardizing a parade route.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, mayor.

Yeah, and the I think the real challenge is the staging.

It would be hard to just make the Labor Day St.

Patrick's Day shorter because where do you have all the cars and bands and everything staged for the start?

So I don't know, maybe could we have an option two and a half where we would direct staff to start down the road of letting us know what it would look like to purchase the anti-vehicle barriers and then also direct staff to have conversations with the event organizers, something less than us giving you direction to really pursue a standardized route but have the conversations and report back.

Maybe we can have five that might support a two and a two to B option.

You want to test that question, Councilman?

Sure.

All right.

Uh Councilman White.

Yeah, it's still I think this question's worth asking uh chief, uh, as far as the standardized parade route.

Uh I would think that you would be able to plan a lot easier if it's the same route each time, but is that a significant muscle movement if we have multiple routes like we currently have or or not?

I'd like to get your opinion on that.

Deputy Chief.

I do think there is benefits to having a standard parade route, uh, like like uh Ms.

Marcotus has said as far as uh the standardized costs and knowing all that.

I I do think that we have the capability of working with uh um Ms.

Marcotas and possibly coming up with a long route and a short road route that would cover the same footprint and uh accomplish all the goals that you guys are looking for.

Thank you.

Based on that, I I'm fine with two, but I I I like the uh to hear more from the organizers of the other parades to see what get their feedback as that was what's suggested up here.

So it's a minimum option two.

I um and based on that feedback we can we can revisit and maybe go with three option three.

I think that's gonna it's the 2.5 right now that Councilman Kelly is got it.

Sounds like okay, shall we test uh option 2.5 hands and you're in a support?

I count seven, I think six, seven, seven, okay.

Thank you.

Pending council's direction on the items discussed tonight, staff will take three concrete next steps.

First, the CECA policy and procedures manual will be updated to reflect the administrative clarifications approved this evening.

Second, the C and commission will refine its mission statement, which currently focuses on furthering special events and artistic and cultural experiences.

The refined mission state mission will establish a clear standard for evaluating projects, whether they create meaningful shared experiences and cultivate a sense of belonging with the neighborhood community.

Third, staff who will return to council with the with the completed manual and proposed mission statement for formal consideration and approval.

And with that, thank you to the commission and to staff and to this council for your continued investment in Naperville special events and community arts.

Do you have any other questions or comments?

Nope.

Thank you.

It's nine twenty-five.

We're reconvening.

Mrs.

Schatz, please read O three.

Item O three is a recommendation to receive the report and provide direction as to the special study to be initiated by the planning team in 2026.

One written comment was posted to the website, and there is one speaker, Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening again.

So from a planning perspective, it seems problematic if staff can only handle one special topic per year, especially when almost half of 2020 2026 is already passed with no progress on the list of topics.

For years, City Council and the community have wanted more than the planning team can accomplish.

On top of this, the city has invested in outside consultants, yet there is a recurring gap between recommendations and implementation.

Special projects are sometimes deferred or dropped, only to be revisited years later when the original analysis is outdated, requiring the process to begin again.

Is Naperville's planning team understaffed or should priorities be realigned?

For example, by hiring more staff dedicating staff to special topics or slowing down the processing of developmental cases.

Could coordination between the planning team and other city departments be improved to lessen the burden on planning staff?

Is attrition an issue?

If so, why?

Can City Council request, excuse me, can city council's requests be managed so that they do not re derail progress on special projects identified during the budget process?

Regarding selecting this year's one special topic based on what was agreed upon during the 2026 budget discussions, I favor the Fifth Avenue development.

I do not understand why the 2022 land use plan is considered insufficient for the I-88 corridor.

I also do not understand why the plan was largely ignored during the promotion of a data center on property that had been slated for future residential development.

Residence input is not reflected and listed in the implementation.

Council direction is also not included in the implementation efforts, which is equally concerning.

Not proceeding with this avenue would play effectively waste cost, time and effort spent last year by staff, council stakeholders, and residents.

The city would add yet another failed attempt on their Fifth Avenue planning to its record.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Alright, on item 03.

I'll take a motion so we can at least get the discussion started.

Councilman White.

Or we can go right to discussion.

Let's go to discussion.

Any discussion from the council?

We have two options, either the Fifth Avenue priority or the IDA corridor priority.

Councilman McGruan.

Thank you, Mayor.

You know, I I don't I believe the staff when they say that they can't handle these, I mean these are major projects, so um, you know, I I'd love to do them both at once.

But um, you know, uh reading the um the text here, it looks like it almost looks like the um the deciding factor for uh pursuing uh the corridor is uncertainty over the build act um and uh impact on Fifth Avenue would be greater.

Um I guess in a couple weeks we may know uh more on that, but um you know, a lot of talk about, you know, there is there is a need for housing.

I mean, I think you know, all this talk about whether that legislation is right or not, um, obviously put myself on record.

I I don't think it's the right thing, but um, I do agree that there's a housing shortage is real, um, and so I I assume that Fifth Avenue would be uh a place where you know what we approved on 75th behind Home Depot.

Um, when I looked at that, I was like that would that would be perfect for for downtown neighborhood for Fifth Avenue.

Um but I I guess you know, one thing I'm not seeing here is um, and I'm gonna ask staff, and you probably can't quantify this and um you know economic impact is important too, right?

The you know that expanding our commercial base.

Um I mean, does the staff have any idea from like a property tax revenue or a ROI?

Um, I mean, should we assume that that the I-88 corridor what we do there is substantially better financially for the city?

Is that something that we're um considering here?

Mr.

Krieger?

Uh you know, it uh short answer is gonna be it really depends.

Um there are a lot of factors we consider um when you consider um kind of economic impact, property tax is kind of one of those pieces.

Um, you know, the others are kind of sales tax, job creation, um uh, and um, you know, impact to school districts, uh a whole bunch of different factors um in general, uh, in and for you know, for the last two decades, we've really been kind of focusing uh or attempting to focus the commercial on the IADA corridor, um, uh just because that's that's kind of what you know kind of ramp ramp this community up uh 50 six years ago um i the AECOM study uh did indicate that uh our zoning there is dated um and we're seeing really that come into play based on the proposals we're receiving um uh over the last couple of years so you know the that uh that is what staff's recommendation is and it it's um it's something that uh you know you're not you are not gonna see kind of tangible benefits in like a uh a six month period but really for kind of the long run that's where we think um the money and and the employee hours are best invested okay thanks I'll listen to the discussion have an open mind here um not married to one or the other I feel like I'm a little biased Fifth Avenue I just I've always loved that plan and I I don't like the city properties not generating anything and I think there's a need for um you know uh housing uh for younger individuals and and seniors uh there as well so but um you know happy to hear other thoughts here and um see which way we go on it.

Councilman Gibson.

Uh thank you mayor I I'm partial to the I-88 corridor um we know how important revitalizing this corridor is for our community um council has shown that you know we gave NDP three hundred thousand over the two course of two years to specifically work on the I-88 corridor and come to us with this strategy that we got about a year ago that is very extensive very helpful um we saw in the QA they have been doing great work trying to attract uh businesses to the 88 corridor are working on branding um there's an I-88 corridor committee at NDP that meets weekly um so I think you know the missing leg of that as we heard from City Manager Krager is zoning um when we had the discussions about the data center earlier this year the land use master plan was essential for how we approach that decision.

So to hear that we have outdated zoning along I-88 while we have a group putting extensive effort into attracting businesses.

Just seems like a misalignment.

So I I'd like to move forward with this special project so that way we can go through the public process, get community input, set zoning and a land use plan for that area.

So that way NDP's work can align with council and community direction.

Councilman Holzor thank you Mary yeah I think um good good comments in both um directions there.

Um while I am going to vote for the I-88 ver option tonight um I agree with virtually everything Councilman Groom said about the importance of Fifth Avenue.

This you know I've said this many times before but um you ride the metro train out from Chicago most of the downtowns he ride through have a really nice space by the train station.

I think it's kind of embarrassing that we're the best community in America and we have parking lots from 50 years ago that everybody knows there's a better use and it's political will up here.

It's political courage that has stopped it from from going further.

So um I really hope that that is something that can be a priority in the very near future um I'm gonna agree a little bit with Mary Marilyn's comments um I I really don't know that hey we're we're studying we're having an outside person study rezoning the ADA corridor that means we can't do something with our train station area I I just don't know that I buy that as as um logical um I I will still express um just kind of a note of I guess skepticism on how so much money and effort was spent on attracting a data center here that was not in line with the city's own guidance uh spending money developing you know through a public-private partnership a plan for the IDA corridor before the city had laid out the guidelines of what we're now talking about.

Um I think that's a lot of money that is going out a lot of money and effort that has gone out to what seems to me like cart before horse.

Um I do plan to bring this up again during budget discussions.

Um last time I already you know mentioned um taking a closer look at for example um the funding at NDP that's going towards printed restaurant guides this might be another area where we could be looking at some funding cuts and making sure our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely thank you mayor councilman Jane.

Thank you, Mira.

Um I agree with uh everything councilwoman um Gibson mentioned I think it's important that we align ourselves with initiatives already at play I do think that housing will still be an issue um with I-88 too.

I mean we're we're um we're looking at potential businesses employment that might be coming our way they'll they'll need housing housing is still going to be a big part of that discussion and um I I just I don't I don't think that it's just unique to Fifth Avenue and I hope we continue to have discussions around housing um particularly for our young professionals and seniors.

Councilman Sayed thank you mayor so effortable housing we have been discussing for more than five years.

I have seen practically on this day as people have been talking about this thing, but we have never moved forward.

But this is a great opportunity first we need to think about the community communities needs professionals, young professionals today they cannot afford a house in neighborhood a lot of people I meet every week out of ten, I ask everybody where do you work neighborhood?

Where do you live?

Aurora Blainfield Las Vegas XYZ cities out of 10 six to seven people lives out of Naperville.

When we can do wonders we can do great things for Napoleon community first.

I feel you know Fifth Avenue we have been doing lip service for the last five years but practically we are not thinking and moving into the direction to help our own own people I feel you know we need to think about our seniors who need housing we need to think about our youth who really want to work and live in Naperville so that they can raise their family in Naperville.

And we all talk great schools great parks great library of Naperville but those people cannot use all these things because they don't live in Naperville.

So I feel you know we should start thinking about Fifth Avenue such a wonderful place station everything we have there but this should be the well where we should take some uh you know uh good decisions or courageous decisions to make this Fifth Avenue happen and I think that will really help the community as well as the seniors but thank you so much.

Thank you well I want to make the case for the corridor um and I'll start with the changes that are happening in in two weeks.

In two weeks June 1st the Illinois People overparking act takes effect the entire Fifth Avenue study area sits inside the half mile metro hub buffer which means the minimum parking requirements will no longer be enforceable on the development on that site.

Trailer bill was filed in Springfield to exempt municipalities our size it is um currently back in rules committee and it will not become law before the effective date of June 1st so we need to plan as though no relief is coming and you see that single change reshapes the foundation of ULI's technical assistance technical assistance panel report that we received in December.

The TAP's three formal recommendations were develop a master plan, run a transparent RFQ, RFP, and study the feasibility of a TIFF district.

But those were all framed against parking standards where code-mandated replacement parking drove the density map.

And the report's right sizing parking analysis, the TIFF feasibility numbers, the development scenarios, the master plan would all need to be reexamined under this new law before we ask the development community to respond to any RFP.

Not to mention the impacts on the neighborhoods and us potentially putting an RFP out that could dramatically change everything that the neighbors heard before.

Meanwhile, in the IDA corridor, there's real momentum that we can't afford to squander.

Perfect examples.

Kihee distributors, a two billion dollar employee-owned food distributor.

They recommitted the Naperville last year, renewing and expanding their corporate headquarters off of Deal Road.

Sell Carta opened a new precision medicine layout on center point.

That's four times their previous footprint, doubling their Naperville workforce.

AGI brought its North American headquarters here, anchoring a global ag tech operation inside the Schumann.

And via Photon, the Naperville based managing advanced manufacturer of next generation fiber connectivity is exactly the kind of growth stage company we want building here.

Food, life science, ag tech, advanced manufacturing.

These are the sectors of the AECOM study identified as our growth lanes, and it proves the corridor compete can compete if we choose to make it a priority.

But the counter trend, it's real and it's accelerating.

Pulti built Napro Commons, 227 homes on 67 acres of excessive excess land carved off the Nokia campus.

Former Lucent building next door was demolished in 2023.

And the new plan there is that Poltee will once again be back with uh requests for more than 260 townhomes and row houses.

Northwoods and Naperville is replacing the Illinois Hospital Association building on Warrenville Road with 64 town homes.

Each of these petitions they arrive with a narrative.

It's vacant office, post-pandemic market, balance of supply and demand.

But the communal the commune cumulative effect is a quiet parcel-by-parcel rewrite of what the corridor is for.

And the ACOM study warned us very plainly.

Without a cohesive strategy, the market keeps delivering moderate density residential and single-use commercial in a sea of parking.

So I think the question that we have to ask ourselves is do we want a business corridor along I 88 or are we comfortable becoming a community that relies on its residents to pay for services?

Half of our jobs sit in that corridor.

And if we can keep converting it one office park at a time, we lose the income tax share from those jobs that they generate for the city.

We lose the sales tax activity that supports our restaurants and retail, and we add demand in our schools and public services without the commercial base that has historically paid for them.

That's the balancing act that has supported 12 consecutive years of real estate tax rate reductions from the city, and it gets harder to hold these longer trends in the future.

So my recommendation is to have staff proceed with the I 88 corridor study.

Is there a motion?

Councilman White?

May I move to make the motion to have the focus uh for the planning team to be on the I-88 corridor.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

Roll call.

Mm-hmm.

Aye.

Cyan.

No.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

I.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzauer?

Aye.

Jane?

Aye.

Kelly.

I.

Motion passes eight one.

Next item is 04.

Item 04 is a recommendation to receive the staff report regarding the proposed Naperville due process and municipal property ordinance.

Consider the options set forth regarding local action on federal immigration enforcement activities and provide direction to staff.

Online, seven positions of support have been posted as well as 13 written comments.

We have 13 speakers this evening.

The first three speakers are Lily Berciaga, Doreen Schweitzer, and Kasim Rashid.

And just a reminder all the public forum rules still apply for public speakers.

And as you've heard your name called, please move to the front row so we can hear you in an efficient manner.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council members.

I'm Lily Berciaga.

I'm a Naperboro resident, a counselor, a professor, and president of Almas.

Tonight I'm speaking on my behalf.

As both an educator and community leader, I want to recenter the conversation around accurate information and clear distinctions because public discussion about legal and constitutional issues matter.

And our community, especially our young people and families are listening closely to how these conversations are being framed.

Thank you to city staff for the recently released report, acknowledging that this ordinance is legally defensible as an exercise of the city's authority and over municipal property and resources.

The report also confirmed that the ordinance does not override federal law or interfere with lawful federal immigration enforcement activity.

That distinction matters.

It is about how Naperville chooses to manage municipal property and resources locally.

As an educator, one of my concerns throughout these discussions has been the confusion that inaccurate and framing can create within the community.

Public conversation should help residents better understand what this ordinance does and does not do.

Distinctions between federal authority and local municipal property, excuse me, policy matter.

The question before this council is not primarily whether the city can legally adopt this ordinance.

The question is whether Naperville believes clear, transparent, and consistent public policy guidance regarding municipal property and resources is important.

The staff report discussed communication training, implementation guidance, and continued community engagement.

Many residents agree those efforts are important, but they should complement formal public policy, not replace it.

Formal policy creates consistency, transparency, accountability, and continuity across departments and future administrations.

The ordinance can also serve as a foundation that supports broader communication.

Expectations, excuse me.

This discussion is ultimately about lawful local governments, public trusts, and establishing clear public expectations regarding municipal resources.

At a time with many residents are seeking clarity and consistency, I believe it is possible to support constitutional rights, respect federal and state law, maintain community trust, and establish clear local policy at the same time.

I respectfully urge the council to move forward with option one while also continuing the broader communication, education, implementation, advocacy, and community engagement efforts identified throughout the staff report and option three recommendations.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Doreen Schweitzer, followed by Cassi Marchid.

Good evening.

Naperville needs to take action to support our immigrant neighbors, especially in light of some of the things that took place here last summer.

I live next door to the park district building in downtown Naproville, and every day I see park district employees coming to work and making sure that our neighborhood parks, the riverwalk, and all the park district properties look great.

Many doing this work are Latino.

Some are other minorities, and although they are all required to be of legal status, the ICE and DHS activities of last summer have shown us that legal status doesn't stop people from being detained.

The very least we should be doing is making sure city employees are safe when they come to work on our city property.

I was concerned last summer and asked if there had been if these issues of the threat of being detained had been addressed by their supervisors.

And in that time of uncertainty and daily news of violent confrontation based on basically individuals' ethnicity, it should have been addressed.

We don't know what this summer will bring.

And as a city, we must be prepared, and we must pass this ordinance.

Do we want to be a community that welcomes and invites visitors to our parks and our businesses?

Do we want our businesses to be able to thrive, knowing that customers and employees will feel safe coming to our town?

How can businesses function if its employees are afraid to come to work or their customers are staying home in fear?

This is an economic concern as well as an ethical concern.

We should join many other Illinois communities such as Aurora, LeGrange, Oak Park, Evanston, and Carpentersville who have passed similar measures.

We should make a collective statement with other communities based on our values and a belief in constitutional rights as well as moral right.

When we said the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of the meeting tonight, it said with liberty and justice for all.

After all, one of the seven virtues is welcoming immigrants.

We should build strength in our community, a community where we welcome and respect everyone.

Thank you.

Please vote to pass this ordinance.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Castle Mersheed, followed by Signy Gleason and Giselle Rodriguez.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council.

My name is Costin Rasheed.

I'm a human rights lawyer who uh works right here in Naperville.

And in addition to the comments made by my colleagues, I just want to talk about a few concerns that I've seen raised about this ordinance.

One, I think the city staff has already addressed the supremacy clause issue.

Uh, this is not a non-issue here.

This ordinance would not supersede the U.S.

Constitution by any stretch of the imagination.

Uh the fact remains the Supreme Court has already settled this in Prince versus the United States in 1997 that we cannot have a federal government uh and have local authorities enforce federal law.

Um, so this is not a supremacy clause issue.

Moreover, what we're talking about is requiring a judicial warrant.

So this ordinance is actually calling on uh the upholding of the Fourth Amendment.

Uh the problem with ICE right now is we have ICE memos that are clear that they no longer require warrants to conduct searches and seizures to go out to people's homes.

This should frighten anyone, regardless of whether you're a staunch Republican or a Democrat or anywhere in between.

If we are violating the Fourth Amendment, we are undermining the basic due process of what makes this a functioning democratic republic.

You study international human rights law, domestic human rights law, and you recognize that the failure of a government to protect due process is the first major sign that fascism has crept in, and so it is critical that on a local level we maintain and require there to be due process of law.

And finally, there is historical precedent about this in combating the atrocities of apartheid South Africa.

It was municipalities that led the charge nationwide to divest their investments from apartheid South Africa.

They were called unconstitutional by federal legislators.

In fact, the pressure became so powerful on the municipal level that it helped pass Congress and override a veto by President Reagan.

And now historically, we looked at those municipalities, nearly a thousand of them who took the lead on this where the federal government was failing, and we recognize that they were on the right side of history.

That is what we're calling for here.

And finally, I'll make the economic argument as well.

The uh latest economic studies show that as a result of ICE arbitrarily arresting people, there have been five billion fewer visits to retail stores.

This is crushing our small businesses, is destroying our economy.

And now we have the benefit of hindsight.

We know from DHS's own data that last summer in Chicago, 97.4% of the people that they're arbitrarily arrested had no criminal record whatsoever.

We have the data, we have the Constitution, we have the economic argument.

All we need is your moral courage to vote to pass this ordinance so people in Naperville know that this is a city that will uphold due process of law, uphold the Constitution, and say no in the face of fascism, not because it's a Republican or democratic priority, but because it is an American and constitutional priority.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Signy Gleason, followed by Giselle Rodriguez and Carrie Nicewander.

Good evening.

As has just been said, my name is Signy Gleason.

I'm a longtime resident.

Could you get closer to the microphone for us here?

I'm a longtime resident of Naperville.

I'm gratified that the council is taking on an in-depth examination of the Neighborville due process and municipal property use ordinance.

Thanks to all of you.

Tonight I am urging the council to endorse option one proposed by the staff.

Moving forward with and passing the ordinance gives legal health to its intent and goal to safeguard city-owned and controlled property from use by ICE.

Further, the ordinance calls for documentation of any violation of the ordinance by ICE personnel.

Such documentation will educate our community, which in turn can serve to promote community engagement.

Additionally, documentation of abuse and disregard of the law at the city, state, and federal level has been shown to be a valuable tool in judicial proceedings.

I further endorse in adoption of option three, it is compatible with adoption of the ordinance and will further identify Naperville as a leader in addressing the disregard of our constitutional rights in our state and our nation.

I finally I want to emphasize that this ordinance is non-partisan.

It should not be viewed from a partisan lens.

Rather, it is about the dignity, safety, and security of all who live and work in Naperville.

I ask who can oppose who will vote against that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Giselle Rodriguez, followed by Carrie Nischwander.

Good evening, mayor members of the city council.

My name is Giselle Rodriguez, and I'm the executive director of Illinois Workers in Action, also known as IWA.

Illinois workers in Action served workers and immigrant families across Illinois, including residents here in Naperville.

Through our work, we provide education, connect families to resources, support workers facing challenges in the workplace, and help community members navigate systems that can often feel difficult and overwhelming.

I am here today in support of the proposed due process and municipal property ordinance.

I want to begin by acknowledging something important.

This conversation is not about preventing lawful federal immigration enforcement, and it is not about placing the city in conflict with federal law.

The recent release staff report self-recognizes that this ordinance is legally defensible because it establishes how Naperville chooses to use its own municipal property and resources.

At its core, this is about good governance.

Policies matter because they create consistency, transparency, and accountability.

While some have suggested that these issues could simply be handled internally by departments or administrative practices, internal approaches can shift over time.

Leadership changes, staff changes, and priorities change.

Codified policy creates clarity that extends beyond any one administration or department.

It gives residents, city staff, and future leaders a clear understanding of expectations and standards.

It ensures that people are not left guessing how decisions will be made or how municipal resources will be used.

We often create ordinances not because we expect a problem every day, but because communities function better when guidance is clear before uncertainty arises.

Clear standards help avoid confusion and inconsistencies later.

Naperville would not be acting alone and adopting this approach.

Other municipalities throughout Illinois have already adopted similar measures and have chosen to establish clear standards around the use of municipal resources and property.

Naperville has the opportunity to join communities that have chosen clarity, transparency, and accountability.

Supporting this ordinance also does not close the door to future conversation.

It does not prevent additional policies, training, or community protections from being considered later.

In many ways, this can serve as a foundation, a first step that establishes direction while also allowing the city to continue strengthening its approach over time.

At the end of the day, residents should be able to trust that policies are clear, applied consistently and remain in place regardless of who is in leadership for years from now.

I encourage the council to support this ordinance and continue building a community grounded and transparency due process and clear public standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Next speaker is Carrie Nicewander, followed by Jane Bergerman and Ulisa Sanchez-Bena.

Good evening.

My name is Carrie Nicewander, and I am the senior minister at First Congregational Church of Naperville.

I want to tell you about something that happened at our church just this past fall.

For those of us who are people of faith, especially those of us in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the call to care for immigrants is very explicit and unequivocal in our scriptures.

We're called to welcome the stranger and to show love to all God's children.

And so at our church, we decided to hold an immigration event so that we could learn how to be better allies to our immigrant neighbors.

The event was scheduled and the speakers arranged, and we were all set for the evening.

In fact, a group of children ages eight to twelve were going to come and perform mariachi for the event at our church, FCC Naperville.

But just hours before the event was scheduled to happen.

Our presenters and the children had to cancel their in-person visit to our church.

There was too much ICE activity in the area, and they were afraid to show up in person at FCC Naperville.

These kids and their parents were so afraid that they couldn't come to a church in our community and perform mariachi.

We still held the event and we had the presenters attend virtually.

But the reality that a group of beautiful kids was so afraid made it all the more urgent in our church community.

It also makes it all the more urgent that we pass the Naperville due process and municipal property ordinance.

We don't want people to live in fear in our community.

We don't want children to live in fear in our community.

This ordinance will make Naperville safer for all its citizens, and I believe that it is a moral imperative that we pass this.

Our community needs you to take a stand right now and show courage on behalf of the immigrants in our city.

We need hope.

We need solidarity.

We need our leaders to show that they care for the most vulnerable among us.

It is my hope that you will pass this ordinance as we seek to make Naperville a safe place for all God's children.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

Next speaker is Jane Bergerman, followed by Ulisa Sanchez Pina and Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening.

Today I completed the detailed online city survey.

It's really thorough.

And I expect it's going to show that we have a great city, and we do.

Many of the questions had to do with whether Naperville residents feel comfortable, safe, and respected here.

I myself feel comfortable, safe, and respected.

But I know that I'm part of the majority of fortunate residents who have not been living in fear that I or a loved one could be handcuffed and hauled away at any moment while trying to provide a meager livelihood for myself and my family.

I hope that hasn't happened to any of your loved ones.

Every day I see workers on construction sites, residential properties, our lawns, and city projects who most likely would never be able to live in comfortable, safe, respectful Naperville.

They may feel unsafe while on the job due to ICE activities all around.

That may unfortunately be the way of the world right now.

But our city can show that it regards all good people, even the most vulnerable as valued.

This ordinance is one strong way to prove that our city is brave and sincere enough to walk that talk.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Ulisa Sanchez Peña, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening.

My name is Ulisa Sanchez Beigna.

I'm a Naperville resident and university student.

Over the years, Naperville has become a much more diverse community, and today many immigrant families call this city home.

To me, this ordinance is about ensuring our city continues to value dignity, respect, and constitutional rights for all members of the community.

Many immigrant individuals and families already live with uncertainty and fear.

And policies like this can help create more clarity and trust around how city property and resources are used.

On behalf of the younger generation, we are paying attention to how local leaders talk about difficult community issues and how these conversations impact the people around us.

Public discussions like this matter and how public discussions like this matter because they shape whether residents feel informed, respected, and included in their own community.

Accurate information and clear communication are especially important right now.

I also believe it is important that young people feel heard and included in local decision making.

Civic engagement becomes stronger when communities feel connected to the process instead of ignored or left out.

Acknowledging community concerns is important, but it should also be followed by meaningful action and continued engagement.

I understand that this ordinance is only one part of a broader effort that should also continue communication, education, transparency, and continued dialogue within the community.

As a young person, I want to continue seeing thoughtful engagement, accurate public information, and opportunities for residents to remain informed and involved in local decision making.

This ordinance is one step towards building more trust, transparency, and communication within the community and local government while remaining consistent with federal and state law.

I believe it is a thoughtful and responsible approach for our city.

I respectfully ask the council to adopt the Naperville Due Process and Municipal Property Ordinance and to continue demonstrating Naperville's commitment to constitutional rights, community trust, and responsible leadership.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer, followed by Elizabeth Schuter and Tim Kane.

Okay.

I offer a poem by Rudy Francisco.

She asks me to kill the spider.

Instead, I get the most peaceful weapons I can find.

I take a cup and a napkin, I catch the spider and put it outside and allow it to walk away.

If I'm ever caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, just being alive and not bothering anyone, I hope I am greeted with the same kind of mercy.

This is relevant because when we have the power to protect people who live in fear through no fault of their own, we should choose compassion and take action.

The core values of the city of Naperville are people, trust, respect, and pride.

Fear undermines every one of those values.

It erodes trust in institutions, demandages community relationships, and weakens the sense of belonging that makes Naperville strong.

The stories we've heard and read about here regarding intimidation, discriminatory profiling, and the lack of due process are real.

Their impact is painful and lasting for members of this community.

We need to take whatever legal action we can to counter the harm that has been done and continues to occur.

As you consider the options regarding the proposed due process municipal ordinance, I urge you to proceed with options one, two, and three, as they are not mutually exclusive.

An ordinance provides clarity, accountability, and consistent reporting.

A resolution publicly affirms the city's values and intent.

And pursuing legislative initiatives recognizes that this is not merely a local issue.

It is a national one that reflects on who we are as Americans.

I'm silent that measures like these are even necessary at all.

But given the current reality, we need to choose clarity, accountability, and compassion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Elizabeth Schluter, followed by Tim Kane and Elizabeth Navarro.

Good evening.

My name is Elizabeth Schluter.

Thank you to the city staff and Mr.

DeSanto for your work on the Naperville due process and municipal property use ordinance.

This ordinance is not about Naperville interfering with immigration enforcement, nor is it a symbolic or political ordinance.

The ordinance is narrow, lawful, and focused on municipal property and resources.

Since April, 18 more people have died in ICE custody due to neglect or homicide.

There has been a 70% increase in unjustifiable detention.

Of the 12,000 habeas corpus cases filed, the judges have ruled more than 10,000 times against ICE.

Close to 90% of detentions were unlawful.

Human beings have been denied food, water, and medical care, all for extraordinary profits to the private prison industry.

Men, women, and children are being sexually abused in detention.

People are being beaten, kidnapped, and murdered on the street.

ICE will keep committing atrocities as long as they can get away with it.

We alone can't stop them, but we certainly don't have to help them.

ICE wastes taxpayer money.

ICE presence costs cities millions of dollars.

ICE burns police time.

ICE is a multi-billion dollar funded operation of masked agents who until recently have acted with impunity to abuse residents of cities, exploit and destabilize communities.

Local governments cannot be compelled to use local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement activities.

There is no conflict with the supremacy clause, and the ordinance operates with an established constitutional precedent and the city's lawful home rule authority.

It complies with federal and state law through explicit judicial warrants and court orders.

Neighboring municipalities like Aurora, Batavia, Downer's Grove, and others have adopted similar legally enforceable ordinances.

This pushback has helped curb ICE's abuses.

Naperville must set clear boundaries and limits on what we will allow.

We are known for our safety.

Refusing to aid ICE abuse makes us safer.

Please don't think that ICE abuses are not happening here.

We cannot be silent witnesses to atrocities and still expect to be considered one of the best places to live in the country.

Please vote unanimously to codify Naperville's actions, exercise our legal rights, and protect our residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Tim Keene, followed by Elizabeth Navarro and Christiane Lewis.

Good evening, Mayor Worley and members of the council.

My name is Tim Kane.

I'm here tonight in support of the Naperville Due Process and Municipal Property Ordinance.

I don't live in Naperville, but I spend a lot of time here.

I volunteer here.

I seem to find myself at both Costco's on a weekly basis.

My barber is an immigrant who has built a loyal business here, and many of the restaurants I regularly go to are immigrant owned, funding those food and beverage coffers we discussed tonight.

I truly think every time I step foot in Naperville, I engage with immigrants who have invested in this community, created jobs, and are part of why I care about Naperville.

On President's Day in February, I was at the Washington Street Bridge with Naperville students who took to the streets downtown to exercise their freedom of speech and protest ICE activity in their community.

I saw their motivation and heard their voices.

Naperville is the leader in the Chicago suburbs.

It's schools, its economy, and its reputation.

Villa Park, Downers Grove, Aurora, and all the cities been mentioned here tonight have already adopted ordinances like this one.

People pay attention to what this city does, and that's exactly why this moment calls for clarity and leadership from this council.

We all know what happened during Operation Midway Blitz, and it continues to this day just a little more quietly.

We know this isn't a solution to our problems.

We can see the problems it creates in the headlines and in our streets.

Tear gas in the suburbs, U.S.

citizens detained, restaurants losing business, civil rights lawsuits.

And these costs don't just stay with the federal government, they land on communities like this one.

On a personal level, growing up, learning the story of the Good Samaritan.

I know being a good person is never about papers or status or place of origin.

It's about actions, and that's still how I think about it.

This ordinance is about protecting residents, protecting trust, and being responsible with this city's resources and reputation.

I urge you to demonstrate your commitment to the responsible use of community resources and a commitment to the rights and safety of this community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Elizabeth Navarro, followed by Christiane Lewis.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members.

My name is Elizabeth Navarro, and I am speaking tonight on behalf of ANMAS, which is the Alliance of Latinos Motivating Action in the Suburbs.

ANLAS supports moving forward with option one while also continuing the broader communication, education, implementation, and engagement efforts discussed throughout the staff report and included within the option three recommendations.

We view this ordinance as one important step that can be taken locally as part of a broader approach.

Over the past week and a half, our organization and local community responders have seen increased concern, fear, and uncertainty within immigrant communities across the suburbs related to immigration enforcement activity.

These conversations have reinforced the importance of clear communication, transparency, and accessible public information regarding local policy and municipal resources.

We appreciate that the staff report identified additional opportunities related to communication, training, implementation guidance, and ongoing community engagement.

We believe these efforts are important and should complement a formal ordinance rather than replace it.

Communication, training, implementation guidance, and community engagement are strongest when supported by clear and consistent public policy.

Formal policy creates a framework for implementation while supporting long-term consistency, transparency, accountability, and continuity across departments and future administrations.

Public ordinances are provided, provide residents and city employees with clear, publicly accessible standards and expectations regarding municipal operations and the use of city resources.

At this time, when many residents are asking for clarity and consistency, we believe implementation efforts and formal public policy should work together.

We respectfully urge the council to move forward with option one while continuing broader communication, implementation, education, and engagement efforts moving forward.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final speaker is Christian Lewis.

Hello, my name is Christiane Lewis, and I am speaking tonight in support of the Naperville due process and municipality property ordinance.

I may not live in Naperville, but my constituents and my constituents may be in another area of DuPage, but I do volunteer by teaching students from Naperville at a local mental health center, and I hear their fear, stories, and worries.

I echo the great points of the speakers before me.

But additionally, we as elected officials are elected as representatives of the people.

I'm not sure how often you ponder that fact, but being the truest representative means we vote as if the issue was affecting us and our families personally.

Due process is the law.

An ordinance urging the law should be completely followed in Naperville, should be passed without a second thought.

If this does not pass, it weakens every law, policy, and ordinance in effect in Naperville.

And I understand you know the gravity that that and the repercussions it could carry.

We must treat any unlawful action with the gravity of all unlawful actions.

As section four states, unlawful actions should be reviewed and action should be taken to solidify Naperville's consistency.

We all heard last time from families and the young people deeply affected by the recent events here in Naperville.

Please move forward as true representatives, using the extent of the law to protect residents as you would your own family.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other speakers?

All right, council.

Um I'm gonna open this up to a discussion.

Um, there are four options that are in the staff report, and we'll start with Councilman Halzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll keep my comments brief tonight.

I support this ordinance.

American elected officials have a legal and moral obligation to defend constitutional rights and due process.

We are literally sworn to do it.

And let us be clear.

As certain national leaders abdicate their official and moral duties, our Constitution and our American way of life suffer.

Silence is not neutrality, it is acquiescence.

When the federal government violates the rights of Naperville's residents in Naperville's borders, you can bet that Naperville will be clear about where we stand.

Naperville stands for our people, Naperville stands for our Constitution.

Naperville stands for American values.

Naperville, America, and our way of life are worth fighting for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Fairly brief comments also.

I just want to thank the speakers who offered heartfelt comments again over the course of a couple meetings now and have implored us to do something on this issue.

It's with good reason.

We all see and hear the same things that you do.

And with that in mind, all nine of us asked city staff to bring back options of what we might be able to say or do about this.

And I appreciate the very well-reasoned memo from staff on that.

Uh, in light of everything we've heard read and heard, I really considered all four options.

I don't think that the fourth option at this point is uh the correct way to go of basically doing nothing.

Um, I just don't think that's sufficient.

Um I've been, I think, very consistent in my time on council and not favoring resolutions where we just make a statement or seeking legislative uh direction from other levels of government.

Um that's not our our own elected nine up here.

Uh so I don't really favor two or three either.

Um, and that brings me back to the potential ordinance.

Um, as I said at the last meeting, my primary concern with the ordinance uh was whether or not it would be legally defensible.

I didn't want to put the city in a bad position.

We have an obligation as a council to protect the city.

I also think it's philosophically uh important to not counter illegal actions with an ordinance that might be legally questionable.

I think we have to have a higher standard when we're dealing with something like this.

Um so I was pleasantly surprised, to be honest, uh, to read in the agenda that it's our city's attorney's opinion that the specific ordinance we're now considering at this moment, which is slightly different than some that other cities have passed, and what was uh presented to us last year is legally uh defensible, at least in part because it contains clauses prioritized in compliance with state and federal law.

And in light of that, I'm uh much more comfortable with proceeding with an ordinance.

Uh I will say that one substantive concern I still have relates to section four of the draft ordinance uh in front of us right now, as I really don't want to create a situation where city staff members might be put in a situation of potentially uh inadvertently violating a municipal ordinance.

Um so I spoke with our city attorney about that, and it sounds like with some general guidance from council, he can either include or exclude certain language when they bring back if they're gonna bring back a draft uh ordinance for our consideration to account for that concern.

And as long as that is the case, I'm comfortable with directing staff to prepare a final draft of an ordinance for our consideration at the next council meeting.

Thank you.

Councilman White.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I I echo what uh a lot of speakers have already said up here uh things very well um but um I think we as uh community as an organization sometimes we we don't like the process that's being used oftentimes, but uh we also should recognize that if we're patient and we actually play the process out, we get normally we all get good results, and that's what I saw uh what I'm seeing right here.

Um I've seen um the petitioners who have come in here, uh the folks who uh who were experiencing all the things that's going on in the in the uh community uh in the country, quite frankly, uh, and they've come in out here and they've put themselves out out there to fight for what they believe is right.

Um there were things that we had to work out as far as uh the legalities, supremacy clause, trust act, all these different things, and the persistence that the uh the folks who've been working on this uh has been has paid off in my opinion.

Uh I like to uh uh compliment the uh the organizers out there.

Uh I know councilwoman Gibson I've spent a lot of time, and she and I have had uh discussions and she's been meeting a lot of folks as well, and uh appreciate that time because it's we we're able to work these things out.

Uh city attorney uh great work as well because I know you've been meeting with a lot of people, and uh I think that again uh we've got to a point now where I'm very comfortable with option one.

In fact, I'm I'm in full support of option one, uh option three, and quite frankly, option four is a little weird.

It says do nothing, which I totally disagree with, but the things and the explanation uh with option four, I do agree with.

I think we should continue to do the things that uh we've been doing as far as the training and being in compliance with the trust act and so on.

Um I think Miss Um I think Miss Schluter, I believe, her name.

Elizabeth, I I think you said it very well.

Um we've we've gotten to a point where we're not gonna be violating federal law that we were in compliance, uh, and I think this is uh a very well written ordinance.

Uh I do share the uh similar concern that Councilman Kelly had as far as uh the reporting piece of this.

Um I think we may need to flush that out.

Maybe city manager uh provide some guidance there as far as how the department's going to uh re report these things, but um I'm in full support of option one uh and I can definitely get on board with some of the other options uh minus option two.

Thank you, mayor.

Councilman McRoom.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um when we direct the staff, I was I was hesitant.

Um I asked how much how many hours or how much labor this would require indicated that um it wasn't gonna be a huge burden, but you know, our staff takes direction from council seriously, and we've got a very extensive memo here, and uh they spent some time on this.

So and and this conclusion that uh this ordinance um the reason why we could do this now is that it wouldn't be a consequence.

Uh it's legally defensible.

Um and the reasoning is is there's several clauses um to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Uh I read that as it's legally defensible because it doesn't do anything.

Uh, that was one of my hesitations when I uh supported the action, but you know, people need to know.

Like, hey, there are things that we're doing.

Um I don't I don't think that option four is do nothing I think the option for is we're already doing everything that we can legally do within what's um you know the state requires so um you know the fact that that the that this ordinance wouldn't change anything I think it's a very slippery slope and I hope my colleagues are not acquiescing to political pressure to make a statement and that is the conclusion that uh our legal staff came to is that from a practical standpoint while this could be legally dispensable uh defensible from a practical standpoint this is this is a symbolic it's a declarative and I think that's a very dangerous thing for a local municipality to start making statements from the city council um I don't care what the issue is I don't care if it's something that I was passionately it's it's not something that I think we should do I think it's gonna open the door for many more requests and um you know so um if you can't tell it's not something I'm gonna support I'm gonna be going with option four so councilwoman Jane thank you mayor um I'm really proud of where we are right now I mean um we had concerned citizens in November come to us with a proposal we had a series of discussions amongst us and between um community members we asked each other tough questions uh I know council members here spoke at length with staff members to try to understand um the issue at death uh councilwoman Gibson and I met with um the Southwest Suburban Immigration Project amongst other individuals who are here to try to understand the issue and try to understand our role and and our position here on what we can and can't do and I I am really proud of what staff has put together they listened they reflected on what our residents said what council members said and they came back with um I don't think something that's just symbolic I think there is a need for clarity there's confusion there is lack of trust um and I think this ordinance in addition to trying to build trust and clarity also has the documentation piece which I didn't you know honestly fully appreciate until I was educated about what documentation could do um and to Mr DeSanto for listening to us and incorporating that I just I feel this memo so comprehensive and educational in itself with the list of web website links that are available um just such an outstanding piece and I I want to thank you Mr.

DeSanto for putting that together um I'm proud of this I and I fully support option number one and I would love to also see a movement on option number three um as well as what council councilman white stated about some of the um non-regulatory uh methods of education and community outreach that we could uh also be doing simultaneously so thank you to everybody involved with this councilman Sayed thank you mayor thank you to the speakers who came out today it's ten twenty nine it shows your seriousness about of a community of our neighbor and we are united as one community.

Thank you so much for this.

As most of you know that I am an immigrant I moved to US ten years ago.

I lived in four different countries Saudi Arabia India, Dubai, and now in US.

I came to this country with a lot of passion.

A lot of dreams.

I made my kids understand that US is one of the best countries to leave.

One of the best countries where you can professionally, personally, and you know, you will have the freedom to live in this country.

And I came as an immigrant on a green card, officially, settled here, took my U.S.

citizenship.

My kids have taken U.S.

citizenship.

And today, after 10 years, we are sitting and talking about this.

Fear factor.

Yes.

As a migrant who moved here, I thought that, you know, I will be safe.

I will be like you all, but no way.

I see.

I feel the factor.

And today when I go out, I tell myself and my kids, carry your two IDs with you.

Always.

We don't know who will stop us.

What will happen to us because of our skin color?

Because of name, because of faith, because of anything, you know.

So that that fear factor I can see what is happening in the last one minute of year because of ice.

So ICE are touring our families, staying part of our families, our communities.

And I see ICE being here locally in our Naperville area.

And recently I saw some of the videos and aurora what had happened.

So, so you know, as a community, we have to take care of each other.

And I want to support definitely this, you know.

And I have met with so many people.

I spoke to you all.

I spoke to staff, and last week we had a good discussion about this thing with the staff.

And I also spoke to council members about this.

And I feel, you know, we all should come united and support option one.

So I will be supporting for option one.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll keep it brief.

Thank you to everybody that came tonight.

Um, but most importantly, thank you to everybody who has continued to show up over the last probably nine months to a year.

I know many of you, particularly the Almus team, have um worked on lots of iterations of this ordinance to get it where it is today.

And I appreciate our staff's effort as well.

Um, so I will be supporting option one.

I'd also like to point out earlier in the memo, or top of the memo, staff outlines the training that we've done so that way if there are interactions with immigration enforcement.

Our staff knows the appropriate legal way to handle it.

I believe Ms.

Weitzer brought it up as well.

Um, so I appreciate staff's efforts on that, in addition to supporting what I don't think it needs part of the motion, but that's something that I would ask that we make sure we stay on top of and was really thorough.

Because I think we need to think beyond the ordinance, concrete things that we can continue to do to make sure we're keeping our community safe.

So thank you to the community for your work on this, staff for your work on this.

Um I look forward to supporting it.

Alright, I want to um thank all the speakers, not just tonight, but who have been at the previous meetings for weighing in on this issue, which is um at the dias here tonight.

And I also want to thank our city attorney, Mr.

DeSanto, as you've heard.

I think he did an outstanding job on the report.

It's thorough, it's it's it's grounded in the law, and it makes one thing clear.

Naperville is already doing what's federal and state law requires of us, and more.

I believe that Naperville's reputation as one of the safest cities in America was built on the premise that politics have no place in public safety.

I don't see why we would deviate from that tracker record.

As the staff report concludes, the practical effect of this ordinance would be largely declarative and symbolic.

It would not prevent federal agents from operating on public sidewalks, streets, or open public forums.

But declarative and symbolic does not mean consequence-free.

The ordinance points to existing municipal property and trespass authority as its enforcement mechanism.

And in plain terms, that means when someone believes ICE is staging on a city lot or in a city facility, the call will likely come to Naperville police dispatch, and a police officer will be dispatched to respond.

That officer will then be tasked with trying to navigate a municipal ordinance on one side, and federal agents acting under federal authority on the other.

I know the answer to that concern will be that the ordinance applies only to the maximum extent permitted by law.

While that language may protect the city in court, it does not protect our officers in the field who must make a judgment in real time when the call comes in while balancing their general orders, the trust act, and the constitution they were sworn to uphold, all while being recorded.

On top of that, Section 4 imposes new ongoing documentation obligations on every city department.

Something staff noted is better handled through administrative policy than locked into our municipal code.

I believe that the number one job of local government is to keep you and your family safe and to have all of our staff act with professionalism, compassion, respect, and in accordance with the laws we're all bound to follow.

And when I'm out in this community, or I take calls or open my email, I often hear from neighbors about what they want our Naperville police focused on and the threats the city is responsible for managing and mitigating.

They want the drug dealers and burglars and the online scammers caught and put in jail.

We want the weapons taken out of the hands of people who can't legally possess them.

They want the street racers and dangerous drivers off our roads.

I could go on, but I want our police officers focused on the emerging and the ongoing local threats that no one else can address for Naperville.

And that is what municipal government can deliver and what we should be focused on.

As our professional staff has informed us in the community, there are limitations already in place that address the concerns raised over the past several weeks and months.

Naperville doesn't do the federal government's work, and they can't do ours.

The state is limited, the police department's cooperation in several respects, and our own policies go beyond what the state law requires.

I respect the passion and the concern everyone has, but as your neighbor, I believe honesty in government is important.

I sincerely believe that moving forward creates confusion for our staff, for the community, and for the very individuals proponents say they're advocating for, because our city's municipal code does not supersede the federal government in this area.

As a result, I would support continued training, education, everything we could possibly do to show what our city is doing on this topic, but I cannot support an ordinance.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

I can offer a motion if it would be appropriate.

Go ahead.

All right, I move to receive the staff report regarding the proposed Naperville due process and municipal property ordinance and direct staff to prepare an ordinance for first reading at our next council meeting.

Is there a second?

Second White.

We have a motion and a second in favor of option one.

Roll call.

Saiyan.

Yes.

White.

Aye.

Wilson?

No.

Waterly?

No.

Gibson?

Aye.

Holzhower?

Aye.

Jane?

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

McProom?

No.

Motion passes 6-3.

New business.

As a reminder, new businesses for items this council is asking staff to bring back on a future agenda or for motions to reconsider past city council votes.

Does anybody have any new business?

Seeing none, may have a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second Kelly.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion passes 9-0.