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

Roll call.

Worley?

Here.

Gibson.

Here.

Coltower.

Here.

Jane.

Here.

Kelly.

Here.

McBroom.

Cyan.

Yep.

White.

Wilson.

Here.

Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

And you're going to be strong.

Our first item tonight is public forum.

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

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

Speakers should be or say 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 or any other noises during or at the conclusion of any remarks made by any speaker are not allowed.

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

No 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.

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

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

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 form in the event council members want to ask any follow-up questions.

Also, when your name is called, please come and have a seat in the first row that will keep us on time with all of our speakers during public forum.

Mr.

Schatz, please call the speakers.

The first three speakers are Derek Adam Hoover, followed by Joe Huss and James Fillar.

Joe Huss.

We have the eight speakers in public forum after James Fular will be Robert Geese.

For the first time in U.S.

history, solar energy at twelve point eight percent is generating more electricity than coal.

You can see that crossover on this chart.

This meaningful reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is a concrete step toward addressing climate change and the damage it causes.

We expect those trends to continue as solar with 60% of the electricity added to the U.S.

grid in the first quarter.

You can see that batteries are also being deployed at record rates.

And some of that battery is because the majority of the solar fields are installed with battery, allowing solar generated power to be deployed when customers need it.

As Illinois's residents were also supporting this trend because the surgery law went into effect on June 1st, requiring a gigawatt of battery storage to be procured immediately.

And we don't have to look far to see this trend playing out.

Just south of here in Will County this year, we've added over 900 megawatts or 900 megawatts of new solar projects were approved.

Construction will start on the fields this year and is expected to go online in 2028.

They'll generate enough power to power 110,000 homes.

Renewables took over fossil fuels in EU electricity generation.

70% of the EU's electricity will come from clean sources that don't emit greenhouse gases.

And you can see on the chart there's a steep increase right after the start of the war in Ukraine as the EU sought more reliable domestic energy with lower price volatility.

And similar to the U.S., we expect those trends to continue.

As you can see, solar exports, solar exports were consistently growing.

But when the war in Iran started, exports doubled in a month as consumers around the globe want to avoid the price volatility and the supply constraints of natural gas and oil.

Overall, the good news is that uh this trend will help slow the pace at which the Earth is warming and the damage it'll cause.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is James Flower, followed by Robert Geese and Tim Farido.

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

Which one is yours, Mr.

Bocker?

Just pointing, I want to interact.

Good evening.

I'm here to I'm here.

I am here to urge you to consider renewing the city's contract with IMEA, but from a new perspective.

Renewing is a practical move that will maintain our reliable and affordable power past 2035 while positioning us for Illinois' nuclear future.

Global energy demands are unmistakable.

Advanced nations and major companies are turning to nuclear as the backbone of an all of the above strategy for electricity generation.

For example, France has 57 reactors generating 70% of its power.

China has 60 operating reactors, 37 under construction, and remarkably over 140 more in planning or approved stages.

Here in the U.S., data center operators in big tech are pouring billions into nuclear because it is the only scalable low carbon source that can run 24-7, regardless of weather, fuel prices, or location.

Nuclear is so compelling there are three shutdown nuclear plants currently being restarted.

Federal tax credits under Biden's inflation reduction act were retained for nuclear, promoting this movement.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now actively working to speed up approvals and remove old barriers.

A 180 degree change from their past practices.

Illinois is exceptionally well positioned to benefit.

Not only is it at home to the largest nuclear fleet in the United States, Illinois has lifted its nuclear moratorium and is actively encouraging new development.

Constellation has already announced plant expansions, including 30 megawatts at Clinton and 135 megawatts at either Braidwood or Byron, which by the way would supply all of Naperville's annual power requirements.

Governor Prisker's executive actions target at least two gigawatts of new capacity.

Illinois is following a similar path to New York, which is seeking four to five gigawatts of new nuclear generation.

IMEA's existing portfolio provides a solid bridge to a nuclear future.

Its two coal plants will continue to deliver low-cost electricity and valuable capacity credits until the day they retire.

Their planned retirement dates line up well with the expected build out of new nuclear in Illinois.

It's easy to envision IMEA's future integrated resource plans, including nuclear power purchase agreements, once the state's expansion is in full swing.

Renewing the contract gives Naperville and IMEA the scale, financial strength, and importantly, the time needed to make an orderly and economical transition to our nuclear future.

Thank you.

By the way, Mr.

Haas and I don't disagree on everything, but one thing we do agree on is this microphone is way too short.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Robert Geese, followed by Tim Ferrito and Ashley Penick.

It's not too tall for everybody.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name is Robert Gheezy.

I'm with Affordable Naperville.

I moved here in 1972 after earning my PhD in physics from Stanford University and spent 26 years at Argonne National Laboratory, much of that time studying electric utilities and energy storage.

Back in the 70s, Gilda Radner's character, Emily Latella, became famous on Saturday Night Light for under ending her misunderstandings with the phrase, never mind.

I was reminded of that phrase when I read the intergovernmental panel on climate change, summarizes IPCC announcement on April 29th.

For years, much of the public discussion about the climate policy has been based on the IPC's most extreme emission scenario, known as RCP 8.5.

That scenario was widely used because it protected the largest impacts from climate change.

However, the IPC has now acknowledged that the RCP 8.5 is implausible and shouldn't be treated as a realistic representation of the future.

Yet the public narrative built around that scenario continues, even though the underlying assumptions have been rejected.

To understand why this matters, it's important to recognize that climate assignments remains a work in progress.

The climate system is extraordinarily complex.

Scientists continue to stutter interactions among the atmosphere, oceans, land, and clouds.

Climate models are useful tools, but they are not perfect representations of reality.

Earth's climate has always changed.

During the age of the dinosaurs, temperatures were substantially warmer than today.

10,000 years ago, much of North America was covered by massive glaciers and climate systems, included natural processes and feedback, mechanisms that scientists are still working to understand fully.

My point tonight is not to debate climate science.

My point is that major policy decisions should be based on realistic assumptions, not worst-case scenarios that even their creators no longer consider plausible.

That brings me to NES in our electric future.

We already have a bird in the hand, our IMEA contract.

We need IMEA far more than IMEA needs us.

Meanwhile, Comet has just announced the 12% rate increase beginning June 1st.

And many analysts expect additional increases in the future.

You would owe it to the citizens of Naperville to pursue renewal of IMEA contract if that opportunity still exists.

Delaying that decision may have put at risk a valuable asset for our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Tim Fredo, followed by Ashley Pennick and John Doyle.

Thank you.

Tim Ferrito, Naperville resident and leader of Affordable Naperville.

I'd like to talk to you tonight about anthropogenic climate change theory.

The way I look at it, I three I split it up into three different parts.

Greenhouse effect, or scientifically call radiative forcing, climate feedbacks, both positive and negative, and attribution of observed changes and predictions.

Tonight I'm just going to talk about greenhouse effect.

Don't hit because three minutes is not a lot enough time to cover everything.

I do want to make a key point right off the bat that scientific debate is not whether greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, but rather the magnitude of climate feedbacks and how much observed climate change can be attributed to human activities versus natural variability.

With that, I'd like to talk about greenhouse effect.

However, this changes with concentration, especially for CO2.

Water vapor is the most dominant greenhouse gas by far.

Carbon dioxide receives the most attention because it's tied to human activity.

A lot of times CO2 is labeled as carbon emission or carbon pollution, just to invoke the vision of black soil, but it's anything but carbon dioxide is colorless, basically inert, non-toxic at atmospheric levels, and essential for plant growth.

So I'd like to get back to the warming effect of CO2.

The important thing to understand about CO2 is and warming is logarithmic.

That means the incremental impact of increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the incremental incremental impact on temperature diminishes greatly.

This leads to what they call a doubling effect.

The best way to describe a doubling effect is by this little chart I put together.

So if CO2 concentration goes from 250 ppm to 500 ppm, you get one degree C impact on temperature.

To get to get another one one degrees degree C temperature impact, you have to double the CO2 concentration.

You have to go from 500 to a thousand ppm.

And if you want another one degree, you have to double that from 1,000 to 2,000 ppm.

In the year 1850, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was around 280 ppm.

Currently it's around 420 ppm.

If you do the math, that's about 0.6 degree C impact and temperature.

The summary point I like to make is that direct warming from CO2 is relatively mild.

The debate is with climate feedback amplification.

I will address this more in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Ashley Pennick, followed by John Doyle and Daryl Hansen.

Are you able to hear me?

Okay.

Good evening, counsel.

Ashley Pennick here again with Affordable Neighborville, a group of private citizens who are looking for pragmatic solutions to keep costs in Naperville affordable.

According to the random house dictionary, affordable is that that can be afforded to be within one's financial means.

That it's a rather simple definition.

During recent meetings, I've heard public comments regarding the definition of affordability, and I've and found I was confused by the logic.

I wondered who would be a good resource to answer that question.

So of course I remembered my favorite economist, Thomas Sowell.

He wrote this book, Basic Economics, a common sense guide to the economy.

Reasonable or affordable prices is one heading.

Soul rights, a long-standing principle of political rhetoric, has been the attempt to keep the prices of housing, medical care, and other goods and services reasonable or reliable.

Let me add the price of electricity.

Sol continues, but to say that prices should be reasonable or affordable is to say that economic realities have to adjust to our budget or to what we are willing to pay.

Because what we are not going to adjust to the realities, yet the amount of resources required to manufacture and transport the things we want or wholly independent of what we are willing to or able to pay.

It's completely unreasonable to expect reasonable prices.

Price controls can, of course, be imposed by government.

But we have already seen what the consequences are.

Subsidies can be used to keep prices down, but that does not change the cost of producing goods and services in the slightest.

It just means that part of those costs are paid in taxes.

Often related to the notion of reasonable or affordable prices is the idea of keeping costs down by various government policies.

But prices are not costs.

Prices are what we pay for costs.

Our Neighborville City Council is elected by non-partisan elections.

That means voters should be able to gather information without political rhetoric and basis and bias as much as possible and be able to come up with logical conclusions.

My personal library includes books such as Ayn Rhine's Outless Shrug, Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, George Orwell's 1984, etc.

Always right by me to reference when I have a question about a subject.

People that know me might tell you that I am very rigid and don't change my mind easily.

With sound logic and the scientific method, I've changed my perspective completely within the last 10 years.

The speaker's time is up.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is John Doyle, followed by Daryl Hanson.

All right, John Doyle, Neighborville resident.

Thank you.

Uh change of plans, and I'm actually going to continue last session's topic and talk a little bit more about subsidizing each other's energy costs.

Not everyone seems to realize this, but our current rate design already has hidden subsidies built right into it.

The problem is we are subsidizing based off a load profile, not based off a need.

As you know, the logistics and economics of the electric utility are complicated, and three minutes is not enough time to get into the math and methodology behind this presentation.

But if anybody wants a copy so they can review any of my statements or findings, please email me at rates at John Doyle.org.

I'd happily welcome an open discussion about this.

So let's dive in.

Generation, transmission, and distribution costs scale with demand.

At the time of the last rate study, those demand-based costs represented 24% of the total cost for the utility.

This is why UFS recommended a demand factor be part of the residential rates.

That's why our GS2 rates have a demand component, and that's why batteries for peak shaving are so attractive to the utility.

The residential and GS1 customers were stuck with a flat volumetric rate to recover both energy and demand costs.

As a result, everyone with a non-average load profile is participating in a subsidy program, one way or another.

This is my info from 2025 courtesy of Empower.

I have a very atypical low profile.

I use a lot of energy, but my demand is relatively flattened even throughout the day and throughout the year.

Because of this, I estimate I paid at least $360 above my cost of utility last year, 160 of that in capacity and 200 of that in distribution charges.

My problem isn't with the $360 subsidies, it's the problem is who it's going to, because it's not going to a family who is struggling to pay their bills, it's going to a family with a more expensive load profile than me.

This is a simplified version, but anybody can calculate this on their own.

They can calculate your non-coincident load factor using end power data and these formulas.

And if that number is higher than 15%, chances are you're already paying the subsidy.

If that number is below 15%, well, you're welcome.

And to top it all off, it's not even an effective rate.

We were short of fully recovering costs by about $13 million last year.

So it's no wonder why our rates are lowered in ConEd recently.

From what I can tell, the utility is sitting on less than 10 million dollars in cash, far below both UFS recommended minimum reserve and the city's own 30-day cash on handling requirement.

If you go into the 2027 rate study looking for a flat rate again, all of our problems are just going to get worse.

You already know what I'm going to say.

These are solved problems.

UFS even recommended some of those solutions last time around, and you didn't listen to them.

Please don't make the same mistakes this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final speaker in public forum is Gerald Hanson.

Good evening.

Daryl Hanson, 21-year resident of Naperville.

We live on South Columbia between Porter and Prairie.

Naperville has an ordinance, and I gotta say, my uh topic is not as interesting as the last few.

You have an ordinance that allows beekeeping in the city of Naperville.

On a city lot, quarter acre, you're allowed three hives within five feet of the property line.

I'm currently dealing with a neighbor who has them five feet from the property line.

Uh it's not functionable to be in our yard at any given time during the day.

I realize this may not be significant to you, but everybody in the family has been stung probably once a month when we get into the summer months.

Um, not sure where the common sense came through that five feet of bee was gonna stay on his side of the property.

Um if he smokes out the bees, you're talking a thousand bees, and he has to smoke them out once a week.

Uh, had code enforcement out.

Uh the gentleman didn't want to get close to the hives because there was too many.

Kind of laughed at that.

State enforcement came out yesterday to say that he's in compliance because he is five feet from the property, he has three hives, and they're not killer bees.

Um, it's a nuisance.

I I would invite you, and this is a bit of a slap and joke here, but come on over.

Come stand on my driveway, come stand in my back patio.

You couldn't finish a cocktail without having a bee in your hair in your face.

It's a complete nuisance, and it's it's now getting to a point where service workers, whether it's landscaping or complaining about it.

I have a new roofing crew coming in a couple weeks, that's a danger to them.

Um real estate agent just said this is a detriment to your property value.

Who's gonna walk your property and not be swinging it?

It's hundreds at any given time.

Clearly, they're not out during the rain, they're not out in the cold.

But the summer months when we're trying to enjoy or at least sit on our property, I can't function.

You can't be outside.

Um, it's that simple.

So, just asking the city to review this policy.

I'm told that if I lived north of Chicago Avenue, um, there's they're not allowed.

But south of Chicago Avenue for some reason, beehives are allowed.

But on a 55 by 160 foot lot, that's just not tolerable.

It's not common sense.

And I'm not sure if this was ever put to vote, but somehow it did pass.

So, again, just asking the city to review it.

Uh, everybody that we've talked to in coordinate code enforcement has said please come to a city council meeting.

So, just wanted to share that uh with you and appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

That was the final public forum speaker.

All right, next is city 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.

I want to start us off by thanking our professional staff for their continued work after last week's storms.

Uh, our police, our fire public works, electric, and even our emergency management volunteers.

Um, they worked really hard over a multi-day period to prioritize the health, the safety, and the resilience of our community.

And I want to ask Mr.

Krieger, our city manager, just to provide some details about that storm and what we are anticipating for tomorrow's event.

All right, well, thank thanks, Mayor.

Um, yeah, super proud uh of our team's response really across all departments.

Uh storms last week brought 80 mile an hour winds uh throughout our community, uh causing significant power outages and tree damages.

Uh, the electric outage began Wednesday and initially affected uh 3,000 customers.

Uh that was able to be reduced down to a thousand within a few hours because of our distribution automation.

Um our electric team has been uh using a restore and repair philosophy uh and uh this storm caused a lot of damage uh to our equipment and um wires and cables across our system.

Uh all system repairs were completed uh by noon um our special brush collection started yesterday uh on the uh public works and tree side public works had over six hundred service requests out of uh the storms from last wednesday and thursday uh our crews will continue to work throughout through June to clean up from these storms uh and as for tomorrow's predicted storms um we are once again focusing on health and safety of our residents and community our public works police fire and emergency management teams are preparing and we encourage our residents to do the same thank you Mr.

Krieger Councilman Alzhar thank you mayor um with regard to uh Mr.

Hanson's comments um first first comment was that that his uh his topic wasn't interesting I actually found the beehive thing very interesting um but I was curious if Mr.

Krieger could provide some insight into the city's history of dealing with this issue and maybe if there's a way we could look at this again.

Mr Krieger uh I've been around a long time but I haven't been around that long.

No the uh the the city um does allow bees uh I remember the discussions boy um I think uh mid-2000s maybe um when uh um around the same time when uh we talked about chicken coops but um uh if Director Loudon she may have some additional detail because I know she has been poking around in that section of our municipal code.

Director Loudon thank you um yeah so we do have um a provision within the animal control ordinances um in our municipal code um that outlines the requirements for beekeeping um actually the the speaker's comments um were pretty much accurate although I don't see any limitations based on location there are limitations um based upon the zoning um of the property so there are certain um zoning areas where would you would not be able to do this so um you know the it's a fairly uh straightforward section that does require um registration through the state so um if there is interest in making modifications um staff could um take a look at uh any any amendments uh directed by the city council the councilman go ahead thank you mayor um yeah just uh a couple of general thoughts on that um you know it strikes me there's some competing policy interests there um you know bees are good pollinators there's some of them are um you know struggling to survive in our increasingly developed area so I get that um but also the thought of having a you know a number of beehives five feet from my property line is is a little bit troubling so um I'm I'm wondering um and I'm like totally open to the mayor or anyone else's comments here I'm I'm wondering Mr.

Krieger maybe if staff could look at this more closely like what other communities are doing and I don't know if that could come in a manager's memorandum or report at a future city council meeting or something.

Mr.

Krieger uh yes uh absolutely we will we will poll um our comparable communities and get a report back out to city council thank you and thank you mayor councilman white thank you that that was my uh point as well I was curious what the you know some of our other communities best practices uh in that regard and and maybe even look at uh if if if we're if we are in line with what the best practices are we may need to put some type of caveat if if from a nuisance standpoint um because it you know until someone brings it to our attention we may not even realize that it's an issue so I I would I think that's something we should definitely look at.

Also I had a question uh as far as the storm is um impact and so on.

Um currently, we have um I want to say 94% of our uh lines are buried.

We have that extra six percent.

Um, can you or someone from the electric department kind of give us an assessment of that?

If we had had those lines buried, what would have been the impact if any different than what actually occurred.

Mr.

Krieger, I I would be guessing at that, but I'll uh I I uh I think uh the impact would have been positive, but I think uh Deputy Director Mann may uh he will certainly provide a better uh insight than I could.

Deputy Director.

Councilman White, in the under in the underground areas of our service territory, we experienced no storm-related outages.

So I think the uh the performance is significantly higher with underground.

Um you said we're 94, 94 and a half percent, and right now we are committed to doing more undergrounding, but we're spending more money in the substations because that's where the need is right now.

Okay.

Um thank you.

That's something I know we're gonna get into to the budget here soon.

Um, and once we get into the fall, maybe uh be interesting to see um about you all your thought on that, uh, Mr.

Krieger and the electric department uh from a budgeting standpoint.

Thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just a quick note on uh the book, actually, kind of brought up uh basic economics.

It is uh he soul intentionally wrote it to uh be directed at the lay person, so it sort of avoids the uh more advanced maths that you might see in advanced economic courses.

But um you can also listen to it on YouTube or audio.

But uh as far as the bees go, uh all uh I do purchase honey from uh Naperville resident who uh does beekeeping.

Um my recollection, her uh kind of to your point, Councilman Holzauer.

It wouldn't seem great to have it five feet from my property line, but um hers seems for not as close to the neighbor's property line, but I'd be happy to check in with her to see how she handles it and if it's uh as much of a nuisance to her neighbors as uh um as it is to yours.

So um or as to do is to you, I should say, but um happy to check in with her, uh Mr.

Krieger.

Thanks.

And Mr.

Hanson, I I appreciate the email from um your residents over the weekend um with the video and everything else.

It's it does tell a story, and and I was surprised when I read the ordinance to to see that the five foot rule was in place.

So um I think our professional staff has her direction to investigate different options and bring back something to the council that we can take of further consideration.

So thank you for being here and for um offering your testimony tonight.

Um last thing I I do want to reiterate, it's really important for our residents to check in with their neighbors and check those storm drains out on your streets and make sure that they are kept clear for these storms.

Um, a lot of our localized flooding we had in the storm experience last year uh last week was due to clog storm drains.

So if you can just go out there, take a rake and clean them up and and adopt the drain, that's one of our our programs.

We really appreciate it, and it makes a big difference in your neighborhoods.

So thank you in advance for everything you do.

Our next item is a consent agenda.

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

Councilman White.

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

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion passes, eight zero.

We have a motion to approve the consent agenda removing I-11, I-12, I-13, I 27, and I 28.

Councilman White.

I move to approve the consent agenda removing items I eleven, I twelve, I-13, I 27, and I 28.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second.

Mr.

Shots, please read the consent agenda removing I 11, 12, 13, 27, and 28.

Approval of the May cash disbursements for a total of 42,841,680.75 cents.

Approval of the June 2nd, 2026.

Regular city council meeting minutes.

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

Approval of the appointments to various boards and commissions.

Receiving the year-to-date budget report through May 31, 2026.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for pickup trucks to Curry Motors for an amount not to exceed 186,472.

Approval of the award of cooperative procurement pickup trucks with utility body and plow to Sutton Ford for an amount not to exceed 401,060.

Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement police evidence room mobile shelving systems to Bradford Systems Corporation for an amount not to exceed 133,960.

Approval of the recommendation by Lion Insurance Services to award property, cyber liability and pollution liability insurance coverage through the Alliant property insurance program for an amount not to exceed 996,847.65 cents for one year term.

Approval of the recommendation by Alliant Insurance Services to award excess liability insurance coverage through a lion national mutual liability program for an amount not to exceed 483,142 for a one-year term.

Approval of the award of the bid for 2026 municipal parking lot maintenance program to Everlast Blacktop for an amount not to exceed $876,551.21 cents.

Approval of the award of the bid for 2026 microsurfacing program to AC pavement striping for an amount not to exceed $359,119.70.

Adopting the IDOT resolution in the amount of $346,241.55 to allow the expenditure of state motor fuel tax dollars to fund a portion of the 2026 microsurfacing program.

Approval of the fireworks display application and issuing a permit for the Naperville Community Fireworks Show on July 4th, 2026.

Adopting the resolution, approving the renewal of the intergovernmental agreement between the city of Naperville and Will County regarding license plate reader cameras and authorizing the city manager to execute the agreement.

Adopting the resolution, approving the appointment of electric utility deputy director for heel or shed to the Illinois Municipal Electric Agency Board of Directors.

Passing the ordinance approving a variance to allow a deck to encroach into the required rear yard setback at 501 Larksburg Court.

Passing the ordinance approving a preliminary final plat of subdivision and an owner's acknowledgement and acceptance agreement for 1180 East Chicago Avenue.

Passing the ordinance approving the payment of 135,669 dollars to Costco Wholesale Corporation for upgrades to traffic signal improvements at the intersection of Ogden and Iroquois Avenue as part of the Costco development.

Passing an ordinance to establish temporary traffic controls and issuing a special event and amplifier permit for the Naperville Sprint Traff on Sunday, August 2nd, 2026, passing an ordinance to establish temporary traffic controls and issuing a special event amplifier permits for St.

Peter and Paul's Catholic Church homecoming fest on Saturday, August 22nd, 2026.

Passing the ordinance authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds series 2026 for an amount not to exceed 41 million dollars and passing the ordinance authorizing the defeasance of outstanding general obligation bonds series 2018.

We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda minus I-11, I-12, I-13, I-27, and 28.

Roll call.

Yes.

Gibson.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Cyed.

I White.

I Wilson.

I motion passes 80 I 11.

Item I 11 is recommendation to approve the award of change order number three to the contract for fire engine replacement and maintenance agreement to McQueen Emergency Group LLC for an amount not to exceed $13,778.81 cents.

There is one speaker, John Doyle.

Mr.

Doyle, when you're ready.

John Doyle, Naperville Resident.

Uh, thank you.

I wanted to pull tonight's change orders out of the consent agenda just so they could get some extra attention.

Uh seems like there's been a large number of change orders this year so far, so I looked into it.

And by my count, 31 projects have had change orders so far this year.

Those projects have had 69 changes in total between them, adding over 7 million to budgets and 19 combined years to project timelines.

Before approving these three change orders tonight, I would really appreciate it if you could let us know if this is typical for Naperville.

Is it typical for other municipalities like Naperville?

And if not, is anything being done to rein this in?

Thank you, and I yield my time on the next two items.

Thank you.

Councilman White may have a motion.

And a question.

Councilman White, uh, for Mr.

Krieger.

Um, can you maybe answer Mr.

Doyle's question to the best of your ability?

Mr.

Kruger.

Uh, thank you, Mayor.

Um, you know what they're uh a change order is obviously something does not go according to plan.

Um, whether that uh is a uh a chain of construction projects that need to wait.

We we have had a significant number of those um uh a lot related to the delays associated with Washington Street Bridge.

Um, each uh I think each individual change order needs to be looked at um uh with its own circumstances, and that's really the analysis.

We don't really um or I'm not aware of kind of like any metrics as to what would be kind of a normal um change order metric.

Uh we usually do see more in the summer than we do um in any of the other seasons uh just because that's when construction is heaviest.

Yeah, I've noticed as well the uh Washington Street uh the Riverwalk project seems to be I've had a few motion.

Councilwoman Gibson, did you have a question related?

Yeah, follow up, comment related to that.

Go ahead.

All right, thanks.

Yeah, I do just want to address Mr.

Doyle's concerns as well.

Um, every change order I see, and I believe all my colleagues see on these.

We look at read the memo, often go to city manager Krieger.

Um, you know, city manager Krieger, you and I had quite a discussion about the change order for 430 Washington.

Um, and a couple meetings ago, I requested staff to um see if we can kind of keep tabs on if there are vendors that continually come back with change orders to see if there's any sort of pattern there.

Um, just you know, as an additional data point when we're making these decisions up here.

Um so I recognize your concern about change orders.

I definitely they raise red flags for me as well.

I think you know sometimes that's just how things happen.

You know, when I do work on my house, there always seems to be something else wrong.

We do our best to get it all in the original contract, but um, you know, I know we do our best to keep an eye on them and make sure we're asking the relevant questions.

So I appreciate you calling this out.

Thanks.

And Mr.

Doyle, this is a unique situation on the uh I-11.

Um we have a uh original contract, which was with a provider that provided those maintenance services for fire trucks, they were acquired, and we're now extending that agreement into future years.

But one of the things from an economic standpoint that's really compelling is the price of fire trucks and apparatus not only has delivery extended into um years, but the price of that equipment has almost doubled uh over the course of several years.

So it's a very expensive thing to um go out and buy new fire apparatus, so making sure we have excellent preventive maintenance in place and repair services in place to make sure that serviceable equipment we have is safe for our firefighters, safe for our community is uh one of the reasons I'll be supporting this tonight and uh Chief.

Mark Pucknight is fire chief.

I just want to say one thing on this change order.

Sometimes most of the time, change orders actually cause an increase to the budget.

The reason why we're making this change order is because we are can't we are canceling uh a contract that we have the ability to do by bringing the work in-house to our fleet service.

So we're paying the remainder of this so we don't have to pay the additional costs going into a a year.

We've we've done that with another vendor, and now we're doing this with this vendor because we have the availability to do this.

So this is actually gonna save the city over a hundred thousand dollars uh on a conservative estimate over the next 12 months, okay.

Councilman White may have a motion on I-11.

I moved to approve the award of change order number three to contract number 17 dash 08 6 B fire engine replacement and maintenance agre uh agreement to McQueen Emergency Group LLC for an amount not to exceed thirteen thousand seven hundred and seventy eight dollars and eighty-one cental ward of seven hundred and seventy-six thousand nine hundred and sixty three dollars and eighty one cent.

Councilman Kelly, second Kelly.

We have a motion on a second on I-11.

Roll call.

Gibson, aye.

Jane.

I Kelly.

Aye.

Cyed.

I.

White, aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Warley.

Yes.

Motion passes 80.

I-12.

Item I-12 is a recommendation to approve the award of change order number four to the contract for 2024 Downtown Streetscape, Washington Street to Copenhaver Construction for an additional 530 days.

There was one speaker, John Doyle, but he has ceded his time and there are no other speakers.

Okay.

We have a motion on I-12.

Mayor, we approve.

I move to approve the award of change order number four to contract 24-0264 downtown Streetscape, Washington Street to Copenhager Construction, Incorporated for an additional 530 days.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and second on I 12.

Roll call.

Hold tower.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Aye.

Cyan.

I white.

Aye.

Wilson.

I warley.

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Motion passes 80 I-13.

Item I-13 is a recommendation to approve the award of change order number one to the contract for North Central College Riverwalk Park, 430 South Washington to Baumgartner Construction for an amount not to exceed 75,000.

There is one speaker, John Doyle, he has ceded his time and there is no other, there are no other speakers signed up for this item.

Okay, members of council, I will be recusing myself on this vote due to a perceived conflict of interest as a trustee of North Center for College.

And Councilwoman Jane.

I too will be recusing myself as an employee of North Central College.

I will have uh Councilman Kelly will be the acting mayor pro tem and he will run this item I-13.

Councilman White, could we please have a motion to open the agenda item of I-13?

Sure.

I move to approve the award of change order number one to contract 26-015, North Central College Riverwalk Park 430 South Washington Street to Baumgartner Construction Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $75,000 in a total award of $2,124,192.32.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Does anyone have any questions or discussion?

Okay, roll call, please.

Kelly.

Aye.

Cyed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holzauer.

Aye.

Motion passes 60.

Okay.

Items I 27 and I-28 are recommendations to pass the ordinances approving the First Amendment to the block 59 Business District Plan and the First Amendment to the Block 59 Business District Redevelopment Agreement.

There was one written comment that was submitted and posted to the website.

There are no speakers.

So we have no speakers.

Is there a council person that wants to speak on this?

Councilwoman Gibson?

Uh sure.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I pulled this and I I actually believe I have a questioner for the petitioners.

Question for the petitioners.

Could you step forward, sir, and and state your name for the record?

Um good evening.

My name's Rich Stiple.

I'm with Bricksmore property group.

Thank you.

Um, so I was not on council in this original business district was passed.

So I did spend the morning going back and watching I believe all six meetings that the spanned in early 2023.

It was uh quite the discussion.

And a lot of the discussion focused on the Aurora Avenue portion of the business district, um, you know, after that initial one in January, and whether that area would be included in the business district.

And it was the original um cap for the original business district is 13.4 million and included that area of uh the property, correct?

So I I guess I'm wondering what has changed between now and early 2023 that necessitates two million um additional taxpayer subsidies.

Yeah, so when um thank you for the questions.

When we put together, Polito, could you just raise your microphone there they're yeah, you need to really talk into it so we can do that is that a little better?

Yes, sir.

There we go.

Um so we originally put together the business district, we made some assumptions on the sales projections along the Aurora Avenue side.

Uh we actually originally had intended on having the entire Westridge Court and um Block 59 shopping centers, and that was scaled back, and we were still able to make that work.

But the original intention was to backfill the existing spaces, and um that is requires a lot less capital, there's a lot less um investment in infrastructure demolition, things of that nature.

And that was one of the original intentions of the business district for block 59 was because we're demoing an existing shopping center.

There's just a lot of costs that go in before you even come up out of the ground, the taking down buildings, replacing all the infrastructure, tearing up existing infrastructure.

Um so there's a lot of uh excess costs that go into redevelopment, and that's that's occurring here because what we're doing, we are leaving, there's an approximately 50,000 square foot building, it's it's 49 a change.

Uh, we're able to reutilize the vast majority of that building.

We are taking down one of the walls that we hadn't planned on originally.

Um but then in order to um make the space fit for this particular tenant.

We um are demolishing, and I may not have the numbers exactly right on how I'm in front of me.

About 26,000 square feet of existing space, and then putting back a 50,000 square foot building.

So we hadn't planned on demoing all that.

We have to replace a lot of the utilities in order to do that.

And we have existing tenants we need to work around.

We have to replace all of their utilities because they get impacted by this demolition work.

So it's just a lot of excess cost that we hadn't originally planned on when we did all our projections.

Okay.

Um so excess cost based on I mean a new opportunity for a new tenant.

Is that correct?

A correct understanding.

Okay.

Um I think it's great that new tenants are interested in the business district.

Um, I'm not sure I can support two million extra being paid for the name by the Naperil pack taxpayers on private property.

Um, you know, affordability is obviously something that we are considering constantly here on city council and in our community.

So um I won't be supporting the additional two million ask of the taxpayers.

May I also add may I make an additional comment?

So go ahead and read the political.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

Um one of the reasons that we're excited about this particular tenant is we we believe that it will generate a lot of interest.

Um, and I we've included in the package of information to you the the sales projections.

So we anticipate those sales projections to go up quite a bit, which actually will in turn provide a lot of additional sales tax to the city and neighbor bill.

So, you know, I think there is a big public benefit from that standpoint, but I certainly understand your position.

Councilman Alder.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um there was uh at least one speaker tonight who cited um Ayn Rand and her work.

Um she's a little bit of an i different ideological flavor than me, but I have read her work.

Um I think one of the things she warns against is kind of this exact situation where government gets in the business of approving private projects um and private business risks that were misallocated uh get absorbed by by the public taxpayer.

So um I uh will also agree with councilman Gibson, I will not be supporting this.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh question for petitioner.

Um when we considered the first the the original business district on this, one of my questions was what is the alternative?

Um, you know, at that point in time, what was the alternative if we didn't prove it?

Would the development have happened or not?

What if we didn't include the portion to the north, which we ultimately didn't?

Would it still happen?

And the answer is kind of a begrudging yes, and and that's what we wound up, you know, the compromise we reached and the project occurred, and so far it seems like it's been a success.

So uh I guess that's my question for you on this piece, which is part of the existing business district, just to just to clarify it's the parcel you're talking about is included in the existing business district we already passed, is that correct?

It is included, yes.

Okay.

Yes, we're not we're not we're not modifying the business district, we're just uh asking to modify the total budget.

The amount that would be ultimately collected.

Correct.

Um so and and when I heard you uh describing what you'll do, I think the tense on on what you described changed a couple of times between we're doing or we will do.

So just for clarity, I are you already doing this work?

Is it happening and the tenant is signed, or is it all contingent upon this additional two million, or uh so what what I want to know is basically is this already happening and you're hoping to recover some of the costs that you're already committed to incurring, or is that only going to happen if this were to be approved?

Yeah, we we have not um committed any we've we've started working on soft costs uh in an effort to move the project along and we're negotiating a lease, but we have not started any of the constructions, so we're waiting to sign the lease uh depending on this outcome.

So um if we don't get approval, um I'm gonna have to go back to our um uh our investment committee or internal investment committee, and uh they'll need to make a decision at that point whether they want to move forward or not.

Um but at this point I don't have approval to move forward without this additional funding.

Okay.

And that's it's a little tricky because it's kind of chicken in the egg, right?

But that that's what I'm interested in because I I want the project to be as successful as possible.

What the agenda item in the staff uh write-up uh said is that you know, the overall business district could be paid off faster, actually.

It it's kind of an oxymoron, but if we increase the amount, the time period would likely shorten is at least that's our city staff's opinion.

So that is appealing.

That was part of the trade-off when we proved the initial district and excluded the portion to the north was that it might extend the time period, which wasn't ideal, but that was the right outcome in my opinion.

I would love to shorten it if we can.

I just don't wanna do that, have taxpayers pay additional money if the deal's gonna happen anyways.

Uh so it sounds like maybe we just don't know that with certainty yet.

And we that's kind of always the question on incentives whether that was cost go on I didn't order this initial business district.

Um so I don't know.

It sounds like you're not totally certain.

So I'm I'm kind of trying to weigh that.

If you have any other thoughts, I'm open to it, but that's that's the key question that I'm considering right now.

Well, like I said, at this point I don't have approval to move forward on it.

So um, you know, are there ways to try to salvage it?

I I don't know, but w what I don't want to do is say, you know, there's absolutely no way it's gonna happen, and then I get we get turned down here, and then you know, we figure out a way to to make it happen.

Um I don't want to do that because uh you know we have a great relationship with the city, and I wouldn't want to give you an absolute, and then you know, something happens, we're able to figure something out.

I'm concerned that without the additional funding, not only will it not it doesn't pencil currently, so it doesn't financially work.

Um we're gonna have to cut out a lot of the design aspects of it that would make it more appealing.

So then it you know ultimately what what winds up happening when you really start to strip the budget is you strip out the the bells and whistles, and you wind up with something very bland and very simple, and we're trying to do something really special adjacent to block 59.

So this is we consider this part of that project.

So I'd I'd hate to cut the budget so thin that it's we're not happy with the result.

If I could follow up, uh let me ask about the inverse.

If this were to be approved, is the lease ready to be signed?

In other words, do you have an agreement and it's contingent upon this happening?

Yes, we we are very close to getting the lease signed, and uh we're we're waiting for for this result, and the intention is to sign the lease at the end of June, and then the tenant plans to make an announcement shortly thereafter.

I apologize if we haven't been able to disclose who that is, but they have asked us not to do that.

So, and maybe one last follow-up for city attorney.

Um, if this were to be approved tonight and that lease does not come to fruition, uh, would this not take effect in other words is is the approval of this contingent on this particular lease being signed?

Mr.

DeSano, um that's an interesting question.

So you you know, in 2023, the council established this business district, which applies one percent tax for 23 years uh in order for um uh the developer to recoup 13.4 million dollars in costs.

The proposal today is to amend that budget to add an additional 1.85 on those recoverable costs, um, but it is contingent upon um this build out being completed and the tenant taking space there and beginning to generate business district taxes.

Those are the preconditions in order for the issuance of a second promissory note to recover the additional 1.85 million dollars in costs which are being requested as part of this business district.

I think it's important that council realize that this is not extending the time of the business district that's in place, nor is it increasing the tax that's already in place.

It's only increasing the amount of recoverable cost for the developer during the 23 years if for some reason it doesn't produce the uh tax generation necessary to repay either the original note or potentially the secondary note, there's no cost to the city.

They just would not recover that.

It depends on what they recover within the 23 years.

So there's not a specific condition saying it has to be a particular tenant, but it does specify uh the proposal that uh Mr.

Tippolito has detailed and indicates that it's a precondition for the issuance of that second note that that tenant takes space take place in that space.

Um so I would say that it does have some security there that that's going to go forward before the issuance of the second note.

All right, thank you.

If I may, we'd we'd be comfortable with tying it to this specific tenant, and that's that's the intention of this, uh, it's just to get this excuse me, we get this one particular tenant in place.

Um so if that doesn't if that didn't move forward, which I'm I'd be shocked if it didn't at this point.

Um, provided we get the funding.

Um we we'd be happy to tie it to that if that was critical.

Uh one other thing uh I did want to add is that um time is of the essence on this, so there is the risk too that if we don't get the additional funding that we're gonna have to go back, it delays the tenant, the tenant is very sensitive to timing on it, that could get that that could cause the whole thing to unravel as well.

Mr.

DiPolito, I understand we can't reveal the the tenant information due to your your uh agreements there, but can you identify the sector that the tenant is in?

Yeah, it is a home goods and furniture type use.

Okay, so um, you know, Naperville's retail sales tax revenues are leading in a lot of different areas, but we are lagging in that particular sector.

Um, and it's not because we don't have customers in our town.

I I think it's it's clearly because our customers are shopping in other cities that have these types of stores.

So after we've received uh uh communication from superintendent Tally from District 204, who's very excited about the prospects of having more revenue be driven almost immediately from the opening of this store.

Um I I think it's a very complimentary retailer to an area that's predominantly um restaurants right now.

And I think that retail foot traffic is kind of the magic combination that you were always anticipating.

Maybe you didn't anticipate that you were gonna have to knock down a building for a retailer, and and I think that's where you're at tonight.

Is that correct?

That's correct, yeah.

This we think this uh this retailer is a great merchandising opportunity for us uh for the shopping center, so it goes really well with the other retailers that we have there.

Um I think it'll also go well with block 59 and what we have going on there to your point.

We have a lot of restaurants there uh to so to have some more uh retail activity immediately adjacent um will be really good for the overall shopping center.

And if it doesn't happen here, would they go across the street?

Do you yeah, that's that's a risk, and that's why we're trying to move quickly and get this resolved.

Uh there's an opportunity.

Uh there are other places within the market that they could potentially go.

Um so they might go over to Aurora.

Um I don't have a list specifically, but yeah, this is this is one of several locations.

Into potential areas that already have tips in place.

Um I don't know the answer to that, so but potentially yes.

Okay.

Any other questions on I-27?

Seeing none.

May I have a motion, Councilman White, on I-27.

I'll move to pass the ordinance approving the first amendment to Block 59 business district plan.

Councilman Kelly.

I will second the motion, but I do have a proposed amendment if councilwoman white would entertain it.

Uh i if if our city attorney could potentially offer some guidance, I would uh prefer to have some contingency language.

It sounds like we can safely assume that that this proposed lease will come together if this is approved, but I hate to assume anything when we're talking about two million dollars.

Uh can we explicitly make the approval of the first amendment to the Block 59 Business District plan contingent on the execution of the lease that has been um proposed by the developer and reviewed by city staff?

Mr.

DeSanto.

Yes, I think that you can do that, and if that were the case, we would reserve um the city's uh signature on the uh documents, executing documents until we see proof of the lease having been signed.

Is that satisfied council?

That would satisfy me.

Is that acceptable to the developer?

Yes, it is.

So I think it at that point it would be a motioning substitution if you wanted to add that.

Or councilman white could amend his motion.

I can end the motion.

Yeah.

Because you didn't second it yet.

So I did.

Oh did you second?

I didn't uh initially but requested an amendment from his motion.

Technically, then if you seconded it, then you should do a motion of substitution.

If your way is okay with me.

Either way is okay with me too.

Okay.

I can make a motion in substitution if that's working.

All right.

I will move uh in substitution to pass the ordinance approving the first amendment to the Block 59 business district plan contingent upon the execution of the lease being proposed by the petitioner and reviewed by city staff.

Councilman White is there a second.

Second White.

We have a motion and a second on the amended motion.

Any, I'm sorry, on the uh motion substitution.

Um discussion.

Councilman Halzar.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll I don't want to belabor the point, but I was actually literally just having a conversation with a local restaurant owner uh about a month ago about how hard it is going to be for him to pay for the roof repair on his restaurant.

And I I bet he cuss wishes, wishes he could come to the city council and ask for us to do that.

Project he needs to keep his business in business.

You know, this is something we're talking about as bells and whistles.

That's the petitioner's words using two million dollars of taxpayer dollars.

I just think we have higher priorities right now.

Thank you, Mayor.

We have a motion and a second.

Roll call.

Kelly.

Aye.

Cyan.

Aye.

White?

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson.

No.

Holt Tower?

No.

Jane.

Aye.

Motion passes 6-2.

I 28.

Item I 28 is recommendation to pass the ordinance approving the first amendment to block 59 business district redevelopment agreement.

Okay.

Counselor, I'm gonna recognize you first.

By virtue of council's approval of the first action, which was contingent on the execution of a lease, I would recommend that this item also be contingent.

They're really hand in glove, and it's important they both have that same contingency.

Councilman White, can you put forward that motion with that caveat?

I move to pass the ordinance approving the amendment to the block 59 business district redevelopment agreement contingent on the lease agreement between the developer and uh proposed tenant uh for that particular uh area.

Second Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion second on I 28 as read.

Discussion.

Roll call.

Cyon.

I.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

I warley.

Yes.

Gibson.

No.

No.

Jane?

Aye.

Kelly.

Motion passes 6-2.

J1.

Item J1 is recommendation to concur with the petitioner and open the public hearing for the Bower Road duplexes and continue the case to the July 21st, 2026 City Council meeting.

Public hearing for the Bower Road duplexes is now open.

Anyone who wishes to speak may come forward.

Going the other way.

Seeing no one, this case will be continued to the July 21st, 26 City Council meeting.

M1.

Councilman White.

I move to approve the award of bid 26-110, energize tree trimming, tree removal and disposal of debris to Ash Plon Tree Expert LLC for an amount not to exceed $1,518,172.40 and for a three-year term.

Councilman Kelly.

Second Kelly.

We have a motion and a second on M1.

Any discussion?

Seeing none, roll call.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley?

Yes.

Gibson.

Aye.

Holtzauer.

Aye.

Jane.

Aye.

Kelly.

Hi.

Syan.

Aye.

Motion passes 8001.

Item 01 is recommendation to receive the electric utility presentation regarding market participation with asset ownership.

We have eight speakers signed up to speak, and then that will be followed by a presentation by City Manager Krieger.

The first speaker is John Doyle, followed by Joe Huss and William Osauki.

Osaski.

John Doyle, Nipperville resident.

Thank you.

This will be the last time I promised tonight.

So you know, last time we had one of these presentations, I expressed my disappointment with the lack of public meetings and opportunities for open engagement on this topic.

Since then, we have had not one but two such meetings to discuss the kinds of trees to plant downtown, but still no meetings about the electricity plans.

If you any of you have any thoughts on that, you know, I would really love to hear them.

Thank you.

The next speaker.

Okay, sorry, just didn't want to.

Okay.

The next speaker is Joe Huss.

Thank you, Linda.

I am Joe Huss, and I have three concerns with today's presentation.

First, I'm concerned the council and public aren't getting a complete picture.

The state's major climate law, CEGA, isn't mentioned in this presentation, and I marked four options constrained by CEA.

These assets would likely be retired well before their end of life.

Additionally, three of these options aren't very aren't likely viable as they generate well under 1% of the U.S.'s electricity.

That information is critical context for the council and for the public.

The second concern is with the rubric, which appears to be inconsistent with real world data.

We continue to ask the city to share the sources of the data for these presentations.

For example, small modular nuclear reactors are listed as low risk and high performing, but there's not a single SMR operating in the United States today.

That's not mentioned.

How a technology that has never been commercially deployed is low risk.

Meanwhile, wind and solar are listed as high risk core performance despite being the most popular new electricity generated sources.

We have real solar projects nearby that could power our city.

Why is that listed as high risk?

My last concern is the timeline.

On page 31, it says we need to quote immediately act for this option.

That contradicts the timeline the city presented just two months ago and is inconsistent with available public information.

On the left side of the slide is federal data on deployment timelines for various technologies.

You can see that the most popular sources of capacity can be deployed in under three years.

In the top right is a link to the solar farm I mentioned earlier, which it took three years from initial permitting to become operational.

In the lower right is another article about a field that begins construction this month and will come online next year.

Beyond that, and probably most importantly, if we want to sign a PPA or development stage assets, we're usually talking about resources that are already well underway or in service, so we don't need nine years to range one.

In fact, looking for assets this far in advance limits our options and increases our risk.

Hastily moving forward on a purchase of this size isn't necessary or wise.

In closing, NES looks forward to the electricity strategy workshop so council can align on requirements for the next energy contract.

Once we have the requirements, we can evaluate the alternatives using a consistent framework which will allow us to create those timelines.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next three speakers are William Osowski, followed by Tim Farrito and Rich Sternel.

Good evening.

My name is William Osowski, one two five five, Brooklyn Court, Naperville.

My company name is Kickbass Company.

I absolutely love this town, and I love the people, and I consider this my chance to contribute to the community.

Recently, I've designed a solution that could satisfy the Naperville electrical needs.

The system is called a 24 7 Solar Skin Water Battery Network.

Patent pending, it's a 100% closed loop energy system with running at 75% energy efficiency.

It uses solar power exclusively as the primary source to charge water batteries.

It uses secondary and tertiary systems to generate and store energy.

It pulls known working technology from three separate disciplines: the turbine, the solar, and the concentrated solar systems.

It has a seven-day backup built into the system.

So if there's no sun for seven days, it still continues to work.

Daily excess energy can be sold or used to melt up to seven miles of sidewalks and roads.

The footprint considered of 24 buildings, each with these specifications.

The height is 140 feet.

The basement's 20 feet deep.

The base is 90 feet around, similar to a water tower.

The moat wall is 10 feet.

There's a moat that goes around it.

It's 10 feet tall, has a beveled inner core to direct blasts upwards.

Each building is made of prefabricated concrete, 680 steel pressure tubes.

Approximately one acre of solar panels is installed around the external surface of the walls, taking up no extra room.

Two million gallons of water are stored in each building.

What it does is it generates 160 megawatts daily baseload.

It generates 320 megawatts max engine capacity.

It can handle over max peak demand of 343 megawatts from my understanding.

That's the peak.

The backup is built seven-day continuous power reserve backup.

There are wildlife considerations.

Birds and insects will be considered in the external wall design.

Each building would contain at least one peregrine falcon roost at about 100 feet.

Certain coatings can help prevent bird strikes.

The aesthetics, the glare protection applied, thank you, sir.

Your your time is up.

Okay.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Tim Fredo, followed by Rich Sterno and Laura Hoy.

Tim Ferrito.

Install capacity means very little.

It's really about actual capacity, especially when it comes to renewables.

And typically that doesn't happen very often for solar and wind.

To get the actual capacity, you have to look at the capacity factor.

So why I have listed here on the table is in generation type.

I have nuclear coal power based on Prairie State, NAT gas combined cycle, wind and solar.

In the first column, I have the install capacity.

I chose 600 megawatts because that is a new for the Will County solar project.

That is the nameplate capacity that they're using.

The capacity factors are applied, and what you can see is a resulting actual capacity.

Nuclear is on top as expected.

At the bottom, you have solar.

And for this is solar tracking, and I use numbers from for the capacity factor.

I use numbers from Lazard.

At the right side of the column is accredited capacity.

That's the credited capacity, is what's needed for uh peak capacity requirements.

So your obligated capacity that entity has, they have to acquire enough accredited capacity.

If they don't have it, you have to go to the wholesale marketplace, which is very expensive.

To put this in graphical form so it looks so you could clearly see it.

The first the first set of bars are installed capacity, second set or the middle set is actual, and the last one is accredited.

You can see a big drop off between for solar and wind between install capacity and actual capacity and accredited capacity as well.

This reflects that their low density intermittent resources, and that's why the credit capacity is so low because it's intermittent.

So I wanted to uh run a scenario here.

I want to see how big of a solar farm would be needed to replace prairie state power plant.

If you do the numbers and using Will County Solar Project as a proxy, which was has a nameplate capacity of 600 megawatts and is taking up six six thousand one hundred gross acres.

If you apply that, you have to replace the prairie state coal or coal power plant.

You would need an install capacity of a one or of a solar farm of 7,500 megawatts.

This would take up a square, uh a gross capacity of or gross acreage.

I mean, sorry, a gross area of 119 square miles.

119 square miles, that's huge.

Now that won't be all panels, the panels will be around 89 square miles.

But that's infeasible.

Thank you.

Thank you, next speaker.

The next speaker is Rich Sherno, followed by Laura Hoy and Larry Colash.

Good evening.

I've been a Naperville resident for 25 years.

The state has uh told us that we have to have zero carbon for electrical uh power change by 2050.

And uh that means no uh natural gas and no coal.

Best vision then would be that we would have just nuclear probably and uh solar slash wind, unless I'm missing something.

Um this is the view of the uh of the prairie we have out here that the uh that we so much enjoy.

Um, in order to power a for a solar station to power Naperville, it would take approximately 5,000 acres, or about eight square miles.

A Naperville's city is 40 square miles, so it's 20% of Naperville, would have to be used for solar if you're gonna have it based close to Naperville.

So here's the picture.

The yellow or in red is the uh Springbrook Prairie, and the yellow is a proximate outline of what a solar farm would take, take up in that area.

So instead of having that nice view, you would have solar panels throughout the whole park, and uh hopefully the trails would be open.

I don't think there'd be any uh foliage underneath the solar panels, though.

Also, I remind you about what happens with a tornado goes through a solar panel farm.

I don't know what's happened to this farm, as one was out in northern Indiana, and I don't know if it's back online or not, but I know that they have quite a bit of uh activity trying to get it back online, whatever.

So let's talk about practicality.

It all sounds nice to be able to cut out all the uh CO2, which we found out now that's the UN's no longer recognizing CO2 or the uh pollution, the uh studies they had were too extreme by a previous speaker.

Land requirements are pretty high.

Transmission infrastructure, from my understanding, is not even in place for a lot of these areas.

That would have to be considered to the cost.

So affordability, which is becoming an overused word, I think, but definitely a factor here.

Reliability.

Well, with all the AI coming online, dependency, artificial intelligence.

It's uh gonna be more important to have reliable power source, and then electric grid stability is another factor, and this is the breakdown of uh what we have now in Illinois.

The speaker's time is up.

Thank you, sir.

The next speaker, the next speaker is Laura Hoy, followed by Larry Kowash and Catherine Clarkin.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Laura Hoyce.

I am a Naperville Central graduate, a Downers Grove resident, and a candidate for state representative District 81, which includes Southeast Naperville.

I'm part of, I'm working with the Affordable Neighborville Group.

And I'm speaking on behalf of Naperville ratepayers tonight who for the past 15 years have enjoyed lower electric rates.

This council has voted not to extend IMEA to 2055.

We're past the deadline.

Other municipalities have secured the 20 20-year extension that I believe Naperville needed.

I offer two compelling reasons to reopen discussions with IMEA.

Sorry.

First, affordable, reliable, nonprofit provider, and second, compliance with the Illinois statute that's applicable, and the Illinois constitution protecting equal rights under the law.

Item number one, affordability.

IMEA member costs are shared equally among customers.

IMEA has consistently and reliably delivered proven results at lower costs.

Comet is 20 to 30% higher, and there's another 12% increase coming.

IMEA promises to comply with CEGA, but energy transitions will take time.

They have pledged to meet the requirements by 2050.

I believe IMEA is the best case scenario for Naperville based upon what we've heard tonight.

This is the slide from the IMEA presentation on sustainability principles that it's promised to adhere to.

Nest, on the other hand, is a volunteer organization that um pushes towards clean energy no matter what the cost and prioritizes political gains, perhaps over reliability.

To keep everyone's electric costs at three percent of income, John Doyle has suggested on April 11th that Naperville should pass an ordinance to mandate higher income residents pay for lower income neighbors' electricity costs.

Forcing some customers to pay for others' electricity's costs is a tax, it's not a choice.

Imagine your neighbor running an extension cord from your house to theirs, knowing that you'll pay the bill.

I don't think customers will be happy about that.

Socialized costs may seem equitable, but they're not fair.

Residents will be unhappy if that should happen.

They deserve to be treated equally.

Not only do they deserve to be treated equally, the law allows them and requires them to be treated equally.

The speaker's time is up.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

The next speaker is Larry Cowash, followed by Catherine Clarkin.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Larry Colash.

I'm a Naperville and Will County resident of 30 years.

I live in that part of Neighborville.

It's a third of Neighborville that extends into Will County.

I'm also a Ness volunteer.

So Will County had to decide something earlier this uh this quarter.

How are they going to address their shortfall?

They've just retired uh two uh two coal power plants, and one of the decisions they had to make was uh on two projects that were presented to them.

And one is called uh the Plum Valley project, it's a 250 megawatts, the other one is Pride of the Prairies, 600 megawatts.

So I think this is relevant for this point, this case, the issue at hand because we're considering uh options for providing our own our own power supply, and one of the things I've noticed in option two that's that's conspicuously missing is the solar PPA.

I'm not sure why it was left out, but if you consider that solar uh PPAs are possibly the most uh widely used today, most uh growing expansive uh capability that uh is available.

It took them, they project Earth Earthwise rejects, it's not gonna take seven years or ten years to install, they're gonna complete this project in 18 to 24 months, and that's sufficient amount of power to drive uh drive our city.

Why don't we consider that?

So, how is that decision made uh by the board of uh Will County?

They considered a variety of things and they decided based on uh the Illinois state law HB 4412, which mandated that they could not apply any ex uh local regulations beyond the state regulations, and also the time limit for the decision was constrained.

They decided because for affordability, they see data centers coming online and the events around the world that are driving uh the costs and uh the price of fossil fuels rising as a commodity.

Uh they also respect farmers' property rights.

They want to lease their land to harvest solar energy, which is an order of magnitude or more powerful than generating uh corn ethanol per acre.

So at the end of the day, they decided for solar, and I think we should too, because as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, it'll be raining.

Thank you, next speaker.

Thank you.

The final speaker who signed up is Katherine Clarkin.

Good evening.

I'm Kathy Clarkin, a 17-year resident of Naperville and a strong supporter of taking action on climate change.

After reviewing the slides from for the upcoming presentation on market participation with asset ownership, I noticed an important gap behind the meter opportunities, which have the advantage of avoiding transmission and capacity costs.

These fall into three main categories.

One, utility ownership of assets such as solar panels, batteries, and heat pumps installed in homes and businesses.

Two, virtual power plants, where the utility can ramp up and down electric appliances or draw electricity from home batteries and car batteries as needed.

And three policies that incentivize peak reduction, such as time of use charges, and demand response.

Of these, only demand response is discussed.

If you live in Vermont and have green mountain power as your electric utility, you can lease a home battery for $55 a month, less for low-income households.

Rather than paying over $5,000 up front.

Through software management, those batteries can be charged with electricity when it is cheap.

The time of raise the time of use rates being the signal for when to charge and discharge back to the grid or to the home with a net metering benefit when peak use is high and electricity is more expensive.

The customer wins because they save money.

Taxpayers win because they are not subsidizing the construction of a new power plant, and the climate system wins because lowering peak energy usage lowers greenhouse gas emissions.

Another example is Ann Arbor, Michigan, where residents voted to start a city owned sustainable electric utility.

From a Fast Company article published on April 30th of this year, quote, a new city program is starting to install city owned solar panels and batteries at homes.

A move that could save residents hundreds a year.

The city realized it could quickly create a distributed network of rooftop solar batteries and geothermal power throughout neighborhoods.

And by buying equipment in bulk, it can negotiate lower prices.

Sounds much faster, more affordable, and more realistic to me than a small modular nuclear reactor.

These types of innovative solutions are homegrown, creating local jobs and keeping money in our community.

In a city that values local control, these are the types of solutions to put on the table.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any more speakers?

That was the final speaker.

Okay, council's going to take a six minute break.

We will be back at 8 41.

Mr.

Krieger's presentation.

If everybody could return to their seats.

So to recap, we are on an O1.

And we are now at the point of the city's presentation.

City Manager Krieger will be presenting tonight on behalf of the electric department.

Mr.

Krieger.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor, and uh good evening.

In April, we began a series of presentations to review our options for procuring energy in the future.

We provided an overview of where we are in the process, key terminology, some of the important considerations associated with energy, and the key dates coming up that impact our decision making.

In May, we reviewed option one, joint action agency participation.

Tonight, we'll be focusing on option two, market participation with asset ownership.

And as we did last month, we'll summarize with our approved components of evaluation.

This graphic should look familiar.

It shows all the points we are going to cover.

Before we dive into this option, let's first define the various types of generation available.

And in recent times, advanced nuclear, such as small modular reactors or SMRs, renewables, and fuel cells are the emerging generation sources.

The goals of energy generation are to provide safe, reliable, affordable, resilient electricity to meet society's energy needs.

Depending on the choice, there is site selection as well as other regulatory requirements and the economics to consider.

Also important to consider how this generation type will fit within the grid and impacts other environmental factors as well as other operations and risks.

Natural gas generation, starting out, it's an efficient fuel choice because it's reliable and abundant.

Lead time ranges from 18 to 36 months, and cost is subject to fluctuations since it's significantly impacted by gas prices.

There are constraints for natural gas generation, such as access and availability of the gas lines with sufficient capacity, and there are zoning regulations and noise mitigations to consider as well as EPA regulations.

And as Mr.

Huss brought up before, CEGA will shut some of these down.

There is a I believe the limit is 25 megawatt and above that's impacted by CGI.

I believe below 25 megawatt is not impacted by CJ.

And we weren't envisioning a very large one here.

Next up, combined cycle gas turbine, one of the most efficient and widely used technologies for natural gas power generation.

Combined cycle gas turbines, two-stage plant, combining gas turbine is stage one, and a steam turbine is the second stage.

Such a plan is significant financial investment and primarily used for baseload and intermediate generation, not just peaking plants, like the previous.

Turbines have similar constraints as regular natural gas reciprocating.

Access to gas line and the turbines will require actually larger gas sources.

And there are zoning regulations as well as noise mitigation that need to be considered, as well as EPA and wastewater regs.

Something else that needs to be considered for really for all the generation sources is really downtime for maintenance, operations, overhauls, and in some cases, such as battery actual replacements, also a critical factor there.

Next up, wind generation.

We have very little open land for utility scale wind farm here in Naperville.

However, as an alternative, we could buy the energy output via long-term contracts from a commercial wind farm.

These contracts typically run from 15 to 25 years.

Next, solar generation.

We currently host a one megawatt solar plant at Springbrook Water Reclamation Site.

We have very limited open land for additional utility scale solar installation.

I would agree that a purchase power agreement for an off-site solar farm or field would be an option for us.

From the graph, you can see that residential solar installations keep growing at a very steady pace, and you know, are currently producing about 16,000 megawatt hours annually.

Alright, traditional nuclear and small modular reactors.

Lead time for traditional nuclear, 20 years.

They built Vogtel in Georgia, $34 billion.

That's not something we're gonna be doing.

Small modular reactors, also very new.

DOE did throw 400 million dollars at the Tennessee Valley Authority to build one.

And they also, well, I guess they didn't throw it, but they granted it.

They also granted 400 million to COVID Michigan for small modular reactor as well.

For North America, the furthest along we have, and right now there are no commercially producing, is with Ontario Power, and I think they're I think there's still about six, about six years away.

SMR is going to be a great technology.

It's upcoming, but still still very early stages.

Next, natural gas fuel cells.

It's an emerging technology that we're researching.

Does not make a lot of noise, everybody likes that.

However, they do have very specific constraints related to siding.

They will require feed gas that would typically be pipelined in most common really being natural gas in a case like this.

And finally, battery storage.

Now, this is not technically an energy source, but an energy storage technology that stores electricity for later use and helps balance supply and demand on the grid.

We're exploring options on what's the best way to utilize battery storage within Naperville's grid.

Earlier this month, we submitted an application to IMEA to consider Naperville as one of two sites for an up to five megawatt energy storage system.

We're planning to issue an RFP to have a consulting company evaluate other opportunities for battery storage within the city properties.

Battery is probably uh the one that over the last couple of years has changed the most significantly from a cost-benefit standpoint.

Benefit has stayed relatively steady.

Uh however the cost and availability, well, the cost certainly have plummeted, and uh as new manufacturers come in, um there's certainly uh there is availability out there as well.

Next, kind of for the behind the meter options, uh demand response, uh software deployment software deployment, um six to nine months.

This also is not a true generation asset.

Uh it's administered through specialized software that could be standalone or connected with our existing SCADA.

Uh we currently have a demand response program through IMEA, and um we're put we're planning to have a demand response module in our new SCADA software.

Um, the implementation phases for that are SCADEN 2027, outage management system in 2028, and then the demand response program in 2029.

Uh so what's key for demand response, customer outreach and participation are the most critical to make uh make for a meaningful um uh grid demand reduction.

Each type of generation asset supports different goals.

Uh, some assets best support our goals of cost reduction, while others are better suited for carbon emissions reduction.

So let's look at these goals.

When considering the assets for cost reduction, uh we consider demand response, which supports energy demand demand reduction during daily peaks.

Uh we also had need to consider generation.

This is the production sold on the market and the revenue used to offset energy purchases.

Uh battery storage, uh also another tool used to reduce energy bills if implemented during peak shaving or if you use it for frequency response.

Assets for carbon emission reduction, uh demand response, uh also great to reduce demand on the grid during peak generation times.

Um renewable assets like solar installations, uh decrease the amount of electricity that has to be purchased, and environmental emission arbitrage or buying and selling recs.

That's another tool that can be utilized to reduce carbon emissions, and uh also on the arbitrage front with batteries, charging them up during low-cost, low emission times, and then discharging them during high cost, uh high emission times.

Alright, next up, resiliency.

Uh obviously, any local generation or battery storage makes us better prepared for a total or partial grid blackout or brownout.

We estimate that Naperville has uh about 80 megawatts of critical load across the city.

Uh having local assets independent of the grid and located in diverse locations around the city improves local resiliency in cases of grid failure or some local equipment failures.

Um, so what are critical loads?

Uh examples would be Edward Hospital, senior living facilities, or even grocery stores.

Uh the uh I was not involved in the selection of the critical loads, otherwise, Binny's would have been on the list also.

All right, before we move on, are there any questions?

Any questions from the council?

Councilman White.

I like your selection there, city manager.

I was there at lunchtime.

Okay.

Very, very nice.

Hey, I noticed uh when you're looking at the uh you you're discussing some of the uh the solar or or wind and we're looking at assets that would be placed in the city, but is did we consider anything that, for example, if we wanted to do solar uh could we do our own somewhere downstate and so it doesn't have to be in Naperville or wind or something along those lines.

It would not be we're we're not really well suited for that but um for both wind or solar or actually any of the generation types uh we could look at uh what would be um uh uh purchase uh a PPA in which we're basically contracting ownership um some of the challenges with that obviously the closer you can get um the cheaper you're gonna have uh from line losses and lower transmission costs um however you know i if uh we were to decide to go with wind you know wind's not going to be commercially feasible um within Naperville um but you try to get it as close as possible to keep those transmission charges um as small as possible as well but that that is absolutely an option thank you councilman wilson thank you mayor um I guess this might be more for like a follow-up um but would it be possible because I know some of the costs have been outlined here um possible to have some sort of a follow-up as far as how many megawatts we would need in conjunction with like a market participation um and what those scenarios might look like and as well as try to get like a total cost of that um I I mean I I say this in uh like in the back of my mind of through an email exchange I was having with Mr.

Huss previously um just from looking at like Lazard's um uh presentation he had cited before based on theirs it was like 74 megawatts for example or uh per megawatt for solar and then combining that with battery it was uh to get peak capacity equivalent to what we have with IMEA was like 142 megawatts or sorry 142 per megawatt um so uh just trying to look at like getting like actual numbers with like to total cost at peak capacity um and what that would look like with some sort of like market participation does that kind of make sense yeah yeah it it does uh and that's something that we can do um you know without uh because the electric market um is so volatile uh people really won't hold prices we do have some indicative pricing from uh the RFP we issued last year um uh but um kind of the nice thing uh about the generation is really you can kind of dial in um how much uh you would like to purchase obviously uh if we can cover one hundred percent of our generation we are totally insulated from the market and are covered um if we cover uh 10% uh basically your hedging 10% or if you try to get it up to like 50% you could hedge up to 50% um it kind of similar to the MDR discussion where you know we were talking about the the 10 and 20 percent amounts but we'll be able to um work some cost information in there just as a follow-up with that too uh with regard to solar I did look into the um the city or the solar project Mr.

Huss had mentioned where it took like a year and uh that particular project was located next to an existing solar farm so that would certainly seem advantageous whereas uh I don't believe we are right now um additionally uh getting I mean maybe Mr.

Munch would be able to answer this but last time uh Director Groth had talked about this.

Our lead time for transformers uh was quite it was very difficult to get them.

Yes about yeah about two years in some cases.

Yeah.

So I guess kind of my point here is that uh we would need transformers to do our own solar generation.

Will that be accurate?

It it would, but that would actually be part of the solar field.

The big the big question uh and kind of cost challenge is uh if there's adequate transmission nearby the solar field um to get it distributed to the rest of our network.

Sure, sure.

But I I guess kind of the my I'm also questioning how long it would actually take.

Uh I guess part of that follow-up would be to see what the actual time would time it would take to get something like like solar and the cost that it would go into that at peak capacity.

Yeah, and you know, for um for kind of utility scale solar, um, you usually want to get in early, usually uh the companies doing them, uh will seek investors before they even put a shovel in the ground.

Um, you know, and and um oh boy, uh I think B Hollow, which is uh probably the most recent um uh for IMEA.

Um I want to say it was like six or seven years from the initial discussions to hey, you know what we're actually sending the electrons.

Sure, sure.

Thank you.

Mr.

Krieger, do you have an idea of of what percentage of our load would need to be uh handled through these generation um assets if we went down this road and also were part of some sort of joint action agency to to handle the other piece.

I mean, are we talking about 200 megawatts of the load or what what's your target?

You know, we're actually probably looking a little smaller than that.

Um and this is not um, this is actually asset ownership or market participation with asset ownership.

Um and what that means is uh if we own zero assets, um you are um 100% exposed to the market.

Um I don't think we would ever want to go above uh maybe like 150 megawatts, because after that, during our um uh our off peak hours, um, we would need to be selling back into the grid, and you don't get a great I I mean uh the best deal you get is if you generate it um and you use it.

Uh when you send it back to the grid, somebody else is gonna have to mark it up with transmission charges, and um it's usually a little bit less cost effective.

Uh but uh and I'm I apologize for kind of rambling on this.

Um, for some of these, they could, you know, it's not really kind of a one or the other.

You could you could do several of them, or kind of in the instance of batteries, you could say, you know, we're gonna do a 10 megawatt at this substation, we're gonna do 10 megawatt at this substation.

Um, hey, we can we can piece together a solar PPA.

Um it's all really just kind of part of a portfolio, and for our electric demand that is not part of the portfolio, that's what we would consider to be the market participation piece, in which we're typically we would typically be buying on the day ahead market.

So you're either participating in a joint action agency who would be handling the other purchasing for you for that product that you don't generate, or you'd be setting up your your neighborville energy office and staffing it and doing all those things that go along with it.

Is that accurate?

That is accurate.

Um with with this uh market participation with asset ownership or um market participation with without asset ownership, which is gonna be uh our topic for next month.

Um we will need to have an energy management office um basically uh that will um uh provide all the scheduling and purchasing into the market, likely day ahead market and and and taking care of um all of those ancillary services that um you know currently we have uh done by joint action agency.

And your estimates on these different potential generation assets do not anticipate any of those costs for standing up in energy management office or the additional personnel for that.

Uh, no, so the the cost purely based on the the equipment itself is what you're doing.

Yes, the equipment itself, it also does not include um uh like the operations staff and also the maintenance staff.

Who would, you know, they're not gonna be the people in the trading room actually buying and selling energy.

They're gonna be the people out there maintaining the equipment and keeping it running.

And just lastly, when it comes to us going out and potentially purchasing the energy generation equipment, I mean what's the right budget number for something like this?

Is it hundreds of million dollars?

Are we in the billion dollar category?

What are you seeing here?

There's a lot of different options, but I don't see any true calculation of those options at the end.

Yes.

Um, for some you can dial in uh kind of like batteries, um, you know, the uh and I think some of it you just kind of do by process of elimination.

Um, you know, the last nuclear plant Vogue Till that opened, $34 billion.

You know, we're not gonna do that.

Um, there'd be too much energy created.

Um, small modular reactors, I don't think that's really feasible.

I mean, they're super, super early, and they certainly wouldn't be you know stood up by 2035 uh following any timelines.

Um, I I would say the gas turbine um is also um not all that feasible either uh because it would likely require some additional pipeline work for that.

Um, from a true generating asset, I think you're really gonna be limited to either kind of like the wind, the solar, um, or the uh reciprocating gas.

Okay.

Seeing no other questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Krieger.

All right, for your report.

What slide am I on?

19.

All right.

All right, looking at option two, market participation with asset ownership.

Uh, we're gonna review all of the components, beginning with an overview and timeline.

First, we need to identify which assets are feasible to procure and install, uh, as we just kind of discussed.

Next, uh, we need to secure capital funding.

Um, if we are going to be sending uh energy back to the grid, an interconnection study uh will have to be initiated.

Um zoning and permitting uh exploration will be required, both uh local state as well as on the national level.

Um, initiate a review by the EPA.

Um, so um, you know, depending on asset, um we really kind of need to start or start to make these decisions now.

Uh next, we'll look at key financial considerations and the level of autonomy we'd have in the power supply choices.

Uh the nice overall theme with um asset ownership is if you own it, you control it, and you've got some pretty good autonomy.

All right, in terms of financial considerations, uh we'd have to determine energy hedging, the extent of it uh and the return on investment of assets uh that we're planning to acquire.

Uh capital funding, we'll need capital funding.

Um, we'll need to identify funding to be able to increase uh city staff.

I'll get into the energy management office in a little bit.

Um, and uh we would as I mentioned before, we'll have a high-level autonomy um with these decisions.

Next, uh, we'll take a look at financial risk for this option.

Um, a lot of risks uh with the asset ownership, um, risk of market exposure with insufficient hedging uh if the market turns against us, we may not achieve our predicted return on investment.

Uh maintenance risks uh we're subject to commodity pricing fluctuations for generating assets, we're subject to uh planned as well as unplanned outages.

Um if we uh with generation, we would typically offset it with uh um uh capacity sales into PJM.

Uh if we cannot perform, uh there could be penalties associated with that.

Um we would need to increase city staff uh for the energy trading work team.

Um, and uh also there's risk of uh frequent rate fluctuations with our customers and risk of uh utility budget uncertainty um with the energy costs.

Next, uh we'll look at the example community and feasibility for Naperville.

Alright, two example communities that operate with asset ownership are Denton, Texas and Pasadena, California.

Market participation requires the creation of a new section within the electric utility, the energy management office.

The EMO will have to conduct our energy trading.

Example for Dent for Denton.

They're similarly sized as we are.

They have the utility staff with front office, mid-office, and back office staff, totaling 14 additional staff members.

Alright, next we'll look at carbon-free resource availability and the cadence of decision making for council.

The amount of carbon-free resources will be determined during the assets feasibility study and/or bidding process.

This option requires frequent city council decisions on electric rates.

Going back to Denton Texas as an example, they bring their changes to their electric rates to their city council every three months to adjust rates, just to assure the financial stability for their utility.

So market participation with asset ownership requires immediate action to start evaluating with feasibility, cost, funding, return on investment, and market hedging level.

Market participation requires creation of a new section within electric, the energy management office, and this section is the one that would conduct the conduct and manage the energy trading.

To move forward with this option, we would recommend conducting an engineering study of battery storage to determine return on investment siting, so we could create a five-year plan.

And we also need to consider a formal generation study to determine net costs to the ratepayers, including capacity incentives and procurement of forward cost curves for renewable resources.

Alright, I'll address some uh some clarification on this one that was brought up earlier.

The high performance low risk does not mean both of those, it means one or the other in order to keep it you know not overly busy, we did not break those out.

So, like for amount of power, um the traditional nuclear SMR and the natural gas turbine all got green because they could produce a lot of power.

Um a little bit less than that would be the natural gas reciprocating and turbine and uh fuel cell as well as battery, and then demand response uh would have the smallest, kind of smallest impact.

Um, so it's not both high performance and low risk, it is either high performance or or low risk based on each of the individual categories.

Uh but but what this chart does is it really kind of summarizes uh all of the different assets that we that we talked about here.

Um, assuming these were uh Naperville located assets.

Um, the only reason I bring that up is when you look at wind and when you look at solar, you'd say red.

Um yeah, you know what?

If they're gonna be in Naperville, they're gonna be small, they're not gonna produce much.

However, if we did extend that through a PPA and purchase something off site, uh, we could move those up to up to like a yellow.

All right.

Um option for next month uh is market participation without asset ownership.

Uh this is the energy management office, and it's basically the same thing as we have uh presented tonight with zero hedging and being entirely exposed to the market.

We'll talk a little bit about what that would look like and what we would need to change internally.

And uh with that, uh really just want to thank everybody for their time tonight, and I'd be happy to answer any remaining questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, first of all, excellent presentation.

Uh Mr.

Krieger, um also wanted to um thank Director Groth.

When we're all thinking about him praying for him, I know how much work he's put in over the years to get us to the point and get you to the point where we are tonight.

Actually, this is perfect that this is the slide that's up.

Maybe you anticipated my question.

Well, this is my favorite slide.

It's the only one that I did, so that's why I like it.

So one of the things that I um really caught my interest in actually the last conversation I had with Mr.

Groth and with you, um, was our discussion around batteries.

Would you mind sharing kind of some of the changes that happened over the last few years uh with battery and where you and Mr.

Grouse thinking was on those?

Uh yes, uh absolutely um, you know, to recap two, three years ago um we were meeting with battery vendors um and showing kind of like 15 to 17 year um payback periods.

Uh all the capital would need to be fronted.

Right now, um that industry has evolved tremendously and costs have really plummeted, where we've got like uh two three-year uh paybacks, but uh basically a an immediate uh return on investment.

Once you can light it up uh with some of the companies who um will will finance them, um our early analysis shows that we can actually receive more in capacity credits and market credits from peak shaving and um frequency regulation than the actual cost.

So it would actually be um it would actually lower costs day one, it goes online.

Mayor may ask a couple follow-up questions to that.

Go ahead.

Um, so that that's really exciting news to hear.

Um just to be clear, uh, we would have to work with IMEA to uh get them to allow us to put our battery storage online.

Is that correct?

We we would and um, you know, if my guess is uh I actually think that um uh where we would save the most money um would be uh to have them involved in the control, um uh as well as ourselves.

If we just controlled it ourselves and you know tried to time our peaks uh for discharging the batteries, um, you know, that's gonna be helpful because they have a broader scale and um much more um you know, many more users, it's gonna be of a greater benefit to them uh system-wide to say, hey, you know what, Naperbell, you know, we're gonna discharge your batteries for the next four hours.

Um that's gonna save you know five hundred thousand dollars.

It's your battery, you get the five hundred thousand.

Sure, and and um to be clear on that, potentially we could build batteries.

Uh, potentially this could be negotiated with IMEA that we were to build batteries.

Um, you know, the 2035 question may not be resolved yet, but those batteries would still be our asset either way, could actually right.

You know what?

If we decide, if council decides to go with the course of batteries, um, I would recommend starting immediately.

Um if we're getting an immediate payback, it does it does a couple of things.

One, um it improves your financial position, will help you lower rates.

Uh now we're gonna need to we're gonna need to kind of pressure test some of their numbers and obviously work with IMEA.

Um, but two, uh it also positions us very well um for the future, um, really depending on where we go.

Um, you know, if we decide to uh join a different joint action agency.

Uh we are going to be much more attractive if we've got a fleet of batteries to bring to the table than if we're just you know, just hey, you know what, we're 350 megawatt load, and we don't have a very good load factor.

Yeah, and just um to kind of put some of my thoughts on this.

I um I think this is actually a great opportunity to um bring value to really all the stakeholders that have come forward, right?

So, uh Portable Naperville, you know, many times have brought up the um uh cost certainty that is potentially available with coal.

Um, you know, this is an immediate return on investment, provides peak shaving, does a lot of things that provide you know really stabilize rates from the the other side of the debate, you know, it's a concern about carbon, but also if you're able to capture energy at better times of the day, that can lower a carbon footprint.

Um with the with the reduction, dramatic reduction, the amount of time it takes to recover uh your investment, actually to the point where you're sort of profiting off of it on day one.

Um I think it can be a win for all parties, kind of regardless of how the rest of our energy puzzle is solved.

And I guess my final question is um, Mr.

Krieger, is this something you're looking at in the CIP in the coming real year or two to be you know moving us in the direction of uh of exploring this?

I would say no to the question within the coming year or two.

I would say yes to the coming year.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, for um uh 2027.

Um, you know, it it makes financial sense.

Um I don't know of anybody in this room who's gonna say, oh gee, batteries, you know, that's a terrible idea.

Um it's kind of the one um uh it one, it makes sense financially, and two, everybody seems to like it.

Um it's also very scalable, so you know, you can you can build, and actually you're better off if I mean we we would be better off with 10 10 megawatt separate 10 megawatt batteries located around uh Naperville than just one single 100 megawatt battery uh because we are limited with our own internal transmission um lines.

Um I wanted to thank you, Mr.

Krieger.

I mean, sometimes progress happens in surprising ways, but I actually think this might be the biggest energy story we've had in a decade here in Naperville, and thank you for the research and the hard work you've done on it.

Thank you, Mayor.

Councilwoman Gibson.

I think Councilwoman Jay may have been before I think.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you.

Um, first of all, Mr.

Krieger, thank you so much for your presentation.

I know you never get to do this.

I agree.

We don't get to do this.

I just want to present.

You guys don't want to listen to me though, do you?

No, we do.

We like seeing you.

And I know you're um taking on additional work, so I just want to I want to thank you for your work and um for your presentation.

I just wanted to make a I just wanted you to speak to the point you had made about we put in an application to IMEA to be a potential destination for storing batteries.

Is that separate from what you're discussing with councilman house hours there?

It it is, and it's and it's kind of not.

IMEA currently also sees the value in batteries.

They've seen that the market has changed.

So they actually went to all their members and said, Hey, would you have a location uh where you could house an IMEA up to five megawatt battery?

Um they want to do two of those projects, they want to do one of those in the PJM, which is the one that you know we submitted the application for, and then the second one they want to do in the uh down south in the MISO grid.

So that that would be separate.

That would not be owned by an owner controlled by us, that would be owned by you know IMEA in its uh totality.

Okay, good.

That was my second question.

So then what would happen should we be chosen and in 2035?

What what would be what would happen to that?

Uh at that point in time, um the I I believe, and I'll I will verify this.

Um I believe the title of the assets would be turned over uh to Naperville.

Okay.

Right, thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson.

You can get back to get back to me.

Yeah, yeah, no, I will we'll we will verify that.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Good.

Okay.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Awesome.

Uh, thank you, Mayor.

Um, manager Krieger, can you um explain how if we explore the batteries, they fit in with our current contract with IMEA and the flow requirements class clause?

Is there any does that impact our obligation to be all of our energy?

You know, uh, our intention would be um that um uh we would we would likely need to enter an agreement with them.

Um uh, you know, battery's a little different, it's full requirements, and um, you know, there's still feeding us full requirements.

Um it's something that you know kind of wasn't really envisioned when the original contracts uh were inked because um it didn't exist.

Um, you know, uh Brian has had um a number of conversations with them about it.

Um, you know, I I had a conversation with IMEA or earlier this week, and you know, they're they're very excited about it.

Um, you know, when when something, you know, flips from a cost uh to a savings, you know, everybody kind of wants to jump jump behind it.

Um but that would it would require a separate agreement.

Okay, thanks.

I couple follow-ups.

Um our last presentation in May, we talked about joint action agency participation and you know, joining an existing one or create on our own.

And one of the questions I had was whether there were options for a joint action agency that wasn't full requirements.

Um and today we're talking about, you know, asset ownership and market generation.

Um, but there also would be the option for asset ownership and joining an existing non-full requirements joint action agency, correct?

Yes, it would, yes.

And that would maybe alleviate some of the burdens of all these additional positions that we would need to create if we were going to market participation.

That's that's correct.

Um, you know, the r the real uh kind of manpower hog with this is really um the trading the trading desk and um there's very little margin for error there because you make um you know you can have someone make a multi-million dollar mistake um just either buying or selling too much.

Um but yeah, the uh in in the case of a joint action agency, there would likely be um a separate agency who would do all of that trading for us.

Okay, so um so in the and especially if we had shorter terms for the joint action agency participation that was non-flow requirements, we could then ramp up our asset ownership over time and decrease our game.

We we could, yes.

Um, you know, the the challenge with kind of the shorter term um is it uh limits some of the asset uh generation ownership options because they want like for a solar PPA, they want a 15-year um uh or you know, same as uh, you know, the wind farms, they want they want longer term.

Um but you can actually kind of stagger those contracts so that you know when one expires um you can look at replacing it so you know you can you can kind of move with the market.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um just a couple more follow up questions.

Again, thank you for the presentation here.

Um and the staff that's put all the time into it.

Um yeah, I I guess uh just you know, looking at this option.

I w I know we're going through a comprehensive um evaluation and then the summary at the end, but like in order to look at, I guess, this option or doing like a combination of asset ownership with any sort of um non-full requirements through a PPA, I'd sort of would like to see all the costs involved with with those.

Um you know, just because we'd look at either way, staff, new staff handling these, um what all the different costs would be involved in in these sorts of asset ownerships, particularly if they're for further away, um, which will obviously increase the cost um and what different sorts of PPAs would even would even look like.

Um so I I don't know that's just my uh feeling while looking at this this uh second presentation and thinking about the the various options in terms of uh numbers and what the w uh if if some of those would even be feasible.

Um, you know, so um because because uh as you know, Director Groth had mentioned it's hard to get into uh one non-full requirement PPAs or um maybe it didn't mention, but it would seemingly be to me that they'd want you all in, or if you're not fully in, then what exactly those contracts would look like.

So um, yeah, that's kind of where I'm at on this.

Thank you.

Councilman White.

Thank you.

Um great job by the way uh on the presentation.

I appreciate you stepping up and taking on taking this on the um I I love the idea with the batteries because it gives us so much flexibility and and efficiency and should also you know it should save us money because we can you know charge it up when the when the rates are low and you know spend it when we when we need to when the demand's high.

Now the one challenge uh one thing I'm looking at however though charging the battery we're still um under the you know the coal fed uh IMEA you know Prairie State plant down there as far as charging the battery um the batteries up so I that that's somewhat of a challenge for me unless um like you said I I mentioned before if we can do something maybe f downstate as an example if we were gonna look at solar and then we got trends I mean we gotta send the uh the electron somewhere but I don't know is is it possible that we would actually just put the electrons into the grid and we would continue to purchase uh like we currently are doing.

Um uh our our full requirements contract with IMEA will remain intact through twenty thirty five um you know the the electrons we are going to be charging the battery with are really gonna be the electrons that are coming from the closest um you know the the closest generating plant um you know whether that's whether that's you know Dresden or Bravewood um or you know the natural gas plants out at Iola um so you know that you you cannot um unless you have it on site you can't really kind of pick and choose um uh what you charge it up with uh however what you will find is that um a lot of uh the utility scale solar is being packaged with battery and in those cases you know that it's 100% clean.

Okay.

Okay.

And I and I get we're not and we we hear this thing where we're we're we're really not buying we're not you know buying coal or what we're using isn't coal.

We understand we're getting it from whatever's closest but for us to buy into the system we're we're we're buying coal down in IMEA to put into the system.

So I guess I'm really looking at maybe for the future maybe post IMA IMEA unless IMEA comes on board to do this um putting stuff in putting electricity into the grid through our own potential potentially through our own asset which could be located somewhere you know off of I eighty somewhere that goes into the grid post IMEA so I don't know any thoughts around that yeah you know that's um that's absolutely a possibility um and um yeah I mean the the kind of battery solar combination i is real and um uh the uh financial math on it is just improved tremendously over the last couple years.

Thank you.

Mr Krieger I want to just clarify a couple things and then um caveat off of something councilman Gibson brought up.

Um so there's there's two battery proposals that we're really talking about here.

One is the application to IMEA where you are looking to be a potential IMEA battery site where we would host a battery that's fully endorsed and approved by them that would allow for frequency regulation and peak shaving.

Yes that's accurate?

Yes, that is accurate.

So with our current requirements contract that sets in place through twenty thirty five how would you go out and procure an additional battery on the city's behalf?

And basically peak shave and do frequency regulation without violating current language in the FOMO requirements contract.

I understand you say, well, we're we would just use less less electricity, but isn't it the same deal that you would have to negotiate into a contract with them?

We we would need to negotiate.

So what action would you need from this council to actually negotiate with IMEA since the council's voted not to negotiate with IMEA?

The um uh well uh kind of our current plan, um, and we've been working with a couple of different um battery consultants is to look at um is to head down that path a little bit further, um and and kind of in parallel with them, uh the way way I viewed uh, you know, the fact that we should not be negotiating with the IMEA, that was on the renewal.

Um, you know, every not every day, but I mean, you know, every week and every month we have interactions with them just from uh, you know, a a customer vendor, um, and and this would I would put this kind of in that category.

So more to come.

More to come, yes, sir.

All right, any other questions?

Councilwoman Gibson?

Thanks.

Uh probably just a quick question.

Uh the interconnection study that you say we're hoping to send out an RFP for for the batteries, would that cover both the IMEA battery discussion and this other battery discussion we're having?

The um the IMEA the interconnection study is needed uh if we are not going to use all of the battery discharge.

Um so uh if uh if if you look at kind of our our interconnection points, if we're never sending power back to the grid but we're using it all ourselves, um you don't need an interconnection study, uh but if our batteries become so large that they're actually having to send it back to the grid, um that is when we would need the interconnection study.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, so it'd be applicable applicable to both situations, whether we're chosen by IMEA and or if we pursue batteries to send back to the grid.

It would um, you know, IMEA was up to five megawatts, and um our team did a great job saying, hey, you know what?

Here are the sighting locations you can put where we will never have to send it back to the grid.

Uh and the other work we've been doing um looking at you know possible 10 megawatt solution, um, we've identified a couple of substations that say, hey, you know what, at 4 a.m.

when demand is lowest, because that's that's where you need to look at it, you know.

Will we be able to use all of this?

And um we do have a couple of substations, uh Indian Hill and Raymond, where we could put a 10 megawatt battery uh and never have to send it back to the grid.

Okay, I think so we're still doing this, we're still sending out an RFP for this, regardless that we're gonna wait in.

The we yeah, we're still yeah, we're still examining, yes.

Okay, thanks.

Councilman Sayed?

Thank you, Matt.

So I'm happy to see that it took four years for us to come to the batteries.

You know, yeah.

So this good discussion is great.

I'm enjoying, I'm liking it, and you know, great ideas we are sharing it here.

So my thought, uh, you know, is that why only IMEA can we have other consultants who can provide us the costing and other details so that we can again compare and see what is best?

Smart way of uh, you know, charging.

Yeah, now um uh for kind of for IMEAs for their battery RFP, they're paying for it, so they can control it.

Um for ours, uh I uh IMEA would not be the supplier of the battery.

Um they're just a current partner who we wouldn't need to coordinate with.

So they wouldn't, you know, they wouldn't be I can't imagine they would be bidding on it.

Um, you know, there's there's a handful of uh current providers, third party providers um who would be responding to it.

Okay, so what will be the difference cost wise and the um difference cost wise?

Um, well, you know, um IMEA's costs will be socialized, so you know if they put something out, they split the cost among all their members.

Um for our i for our own owned battery, um, you know, that cost would be entirely on us.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Krieger.

No further questions from the council.

I see.

Our final item tonight is new business.

As a reminder, new business is for items.

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

Does anybody have any new business?

Seeing none, may I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Motion a second to adjourn.

All those in favor saying aye.

Opposed, we are adjourned.

Thank you.