City Council - Regular Meeting

that are in a standing only room status. I know we're working to get our awards out early and try and get uh those people that have school tomorrow out of here. Um in just a minute, we do have one older person who we're trying to bring in online. Uh he's sick and and we'll be calling it in. Uh but we'll go ahead and get started. Uh, this meeting of the Aurora City Council for March 24th, 2026 is hereby called to order at 6:03 p.m. I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. Alderman Barero here. Alderwoman Garza here. Alderman Masakos present. Alderman Nunes here. Alderman Franco here. Alderman Seville here. Here. Alderman Benuelos here. Alderwoman Smith here. Alderman Bog

here. Alderwoman Bade here. Alderman Larson here. Alderman White here. Mayor Lash is present. The first thing we need to do is uh take a special vote to allow remote participation by Alderman Seville who's requested to participate remotely per section 2-80 based on a reasonable anticipation of an extended illness. Is there a motion to allow Alderman to participate remotely? Motion was made by Alderwoman Smith, second by Alderwoman Garza. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? This motion carries. Uh, let the record reflect that Alderman Seville is joining us uh, remotely. Uh, next, is there a motion to approve the appointment of Sergeant-at-Arms for this meeting? Second.

Motion was made by Alderwoman Smith, second by Alderman Franco. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh, next I'll ask uh, Alderman Messakos if you'll lead us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And without further ado, I know that all of you came tonight for the uh exciting mayor's report led by John Sigul.

Thank you so much, mayor. We have a number of recognitions we're going to get to here tonight. We will start with the annual Women's History Month proclamation here for the city of Abor. Let's clap it up. Round of applause for Women's History Month here in the war. Celebrated every March, Women's History Month is a time to recognize the invaluable contributions of women throughout history while also acknowledging the women of Aurora, past, present, and future, who continue to make a difference here in our community. So, at this time, we'd like to invite up female members of city staff who are here. that we're invited. Any of our older people are welcome to come down and Mayor John Lash as we read out the official Women's History Month proclamation.

All right. Round of applause for our City of Aurora women staff members. Great representation here tonight for Women's History Month. Amazing full house. Okay. Uh without further ado, whereas the city of Aurora recognizes the invaluable contributions of women throughout history, honoring their achievements and progress in shaping our community, our state, and our nation. Whereas throughout American history, courageous women and girls have made vital contributions, including marching for and winning the right to vote, campaigning against injustices, and shattering countless barriers, often in the face of discrimination and undue hardship. And whereas these women created a legacy that continues to inspire generations of women to live with confidence, to have a positive impact on their communities, and to improve the world every day. And whereas today, the city of Aurora is proud to have the distinguished women who help lead our city, Alderwoman Wani Garza, Alderwoman Patty Smith, and Alderwoman Schwabade. uh women who provide leadership and our city departments and divisions who maintain their daily responsibilities at Aurora City Hall. And whereas women in business, education, law enforcement, healthcare, the arts, public service, and government continue to drive Aurora's progress and inspire future generations. Whereas the city of Aurora is committed to fostering an inclusive and equitable community where women and girls have access to education, career advancement, leadership opportunities, and the resources needed to thrive with

groups like Power Women at Aurora City Hall leading the way. And whereas during Women's History Month, we celebrate and honor the women of Aurora, past, present, and future, who continue to make a difference and whose contribution shape our shared history. Now therefore, I, Mayor John Lash, do hereby proclaim March 26, 2026 as Women Histories Month in the city of Aurora, Illinois, and salute the women of Aurora who continue to pave the way for future generations, helping our city of lights to shine brightly. Thanks to everybody here in the city of War. So, thank you again everybody for being here tonight. Another round of applause for Women's History Month here in the city of Aore. Great representation here tonight. So, as we shift gears to tonight's second recognition, the spirit of Women's History Month continues to move forward as we welcome the Simmons Middle School Panthers and the Holy Angels Catholic School Thunder, whose seventh and eighth grade girls basketball teams won the annual City of Lights Basketball Tournament. The champs are here. Round of applause. We'll start with Simmons Middle School. Please come on up. We have mayor's awards of excellence for all of you. You can take some pictures with the mayor and we'll read out one of those mayor's

awards of excellences as well. Congratulations on your big victory. You guys going to do get up. Some of you hop up on the back. ANY other alderman want to join us? You're welcome. Alderman Burrow is representing 131. Okay. Um, so this is a congratulations to all of our uh young athletes who represent the City of Light rightly for winning the 2026 City of Lights 7th grade girls basketball championship as part of Simmons Middle School Panthers. You make Aurora proud. Thank you so much. Let's give it up for the Aurora Panthers. We're going to do a photo. So, if you want to just take it out and open it and display it. Yep. Is that what we do?

Round of applause for Simmons Middle School. We'll now invite up Holy Angels Catholic School, the eighth grade City City of Lights girls basketball champions.

So, you guys saw what happened. You're going to do the same thing when I borrow. So you guys tell me this line can stand on the back then make sure that you can all be seen.

Okay. Well, it's so fitting that during Women's History Month, we're honoring our two uh female um sports teams for winning the 2026 City of Lights 8th grade girls basketball championship as part of the Holy Angels Catholic School Thunder. You make Aurora proud. I wanted to recognize all of them. And if we could give it a a round of applause for the eighth grade girls basketball champions. Ready? One, two, three. Big smile.

Congratulations to Holy Angels. Eighth grade champs. Congratulations again to both teams making things happen here in Aurora. Special shout out to to our youth services division for putting on the tournament and having all these people come out to be honored here tonight. Round of applause for youth services as well. Simon Rodriguez, Kevin Talkington, do great work and youth services for the city of Aurora. We do have one more uh proclamation this evening, but if you do want to work your way out, feel free.

One more proclamation here tonight and uh this one is going to go out to a community stalwart who unfortunately did pass away on March 5th. Tony Galves was a proud son of Abora who at 6 years old was diagnosed with duchen musculardrophe which left him with mobility limitations and a reliance on feeding tubes and oxygen masks for the rest of his life. But he never let his condition hold him back. Galvans created the San Antonio Foundation raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for children fighting cancer and other lifealtering diseases and served as a true inspiration to all of us who call Aurora home. So tonight, we'll invite up the family, Tony Galves, and any older people as well to join the mayor up front for the reading of a special proclamation to honor his legacy and what he meant to the city of Amora. Some of you guys over here. Okay. So, not as uh celebratory as the uh the previous proclamations, but uh you know, like like a lot of people here in the community uh attended the funeral for Tony and uh I know that Aurora will miss him and from the large uh outpouring at at uh uh the wake service uh it's pretty clear that he was loved in our community and will be missed. Uh so we want to recognize uh Tony Galves as a proud son of Aurora and cherished community

advocate born on March 26, 1988 uh to Raone and Antonia Galves. Uh whereas at age six uh Tony was diagnosed with a rare form of musculardrophe which left him with mobility limitations and a reliance on feeding tubes and oxygen mass for the rest of his life. Whereas Galveves condition never defined his legacy as he became a stalwart in the community creating the Antonio Foundation to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for children fighting cancer and other lifealtering diseases. Whereas Galveves served as an inspiration to the city of Aurora and beyond, working hard to take care of those in need while showcasing significant perseverance and compassion in the face of adversity. And whereas on March 5th, Tony Galves passed away, leaving huge hole in the hearts of his family, friends, and the community. And whereas the city of Aurora expresses its heartfelt gratitude to Tony Galves for his extraordinary efforts, immense contribution, and selfless service to the community. I, Mayor John Lash, congratulate Galveves on his outstanding accomplishments in Dubai, posthumously proclaim his birthday, March 26, as Tony Galveves Day in the city of Aurora in perpetuity. ensuring that his life will never be forgotten and his memory will be eternal. Thank you so much to the family of Tony Galbass for coming and for Deputy Mayor Cassildo, Casey Qubas for helping organize this and bring this all together. That does it for us for recognitions

here tonight. We appreciate everybody being here. Thank you so much for investing and celebrating our roar community. So, we'll just take a minute and allow people that uh did not show up for the exciting topic of data centers to filter out. Reconvene the meeting in a minute. I know. As people filter out, we'll move to the next section, public comment. Madam clerk, do we have any members of the public wishing to offer public comment? Yes, we do.

And would you please read the rules of public comment?

Pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, all persons shall be permitted an opportunity to address public officials under the rules established and recorded by the council. Under our rules, any person may address the city council for up to three minutes with a maximum of 30 minutes allotted for all public comment. No person other than the timekeeper or the chair for the purpose of maintaining order may interrupt a person recognized for public comment during his or her comments. Members of the city council shall not engage with nor respond to a speaker during the time set aside for public comment. Staff is directed to follow up with members of the public with respect to any concerns raised during public comment within the scope of the city's authority following the adjournment of this meeting.

Okay. Before we get going, I just want to let uh the rest of the council know we do have an extensive list which will probably go longer than the 30 minutes. Um so we're going to go ahead and proceed with the names, but if you feel like uh what you're saying resonates with what somebody previously said in the in the public and you want to uh just move to anything unique in your your talking points, uh that'll help shorten it and give everybody an opportunity to speak before the 30 minutes are up. Madam clerk, will you please read the name of the first person wishing off for public comment this evening? Anonymous Aurora resident.

Hi, can you hear me?

You have three minutes beginning now. I just like to know if we can count on each and every one of you to come together tonight with a clean resolution and to pass whatever we need to and um uh making sure that we do not have the data centers going into an extension on the moratorum because should that happen in that 30-day period like I mentioned before because this isn't our first time we've been up here. I'm not going to rehash all the previous stuff because we've talked about that too much before, but in that 30-day interim period, it is my understanding that anyone who applies for a new data center application does not have to abide by the new stricter um and more regulatory rules and regulations. So, we really need to make a decision tonight. I implore you to do so so that we do not have to fall back on another uh extension on that moratorum. Um Cyrus one is also now trying to infiltrate Sangaman County which is in Springfield as another new target. And um last week I found out that the data centers are involved in dark money and illegal cryptocurrency uh activity in that industry. We can do better and we need our leadership not to fail like those who are in Juliet and Yorkville recently as they have. This will define your legacy and your history here in Aurora. The opportunity to set stricter guidelines is why so many news channels are even here because this can set a precedent in the country as many places are watching to see if Aurora can do the right thing and be leaders to manage this nightmare. We know we can't get rid of data centers because that will never happen. That horse is already out of the barn. But now it's a matter of trying to

contain the damage and keeping them in check. Now, we can only hope to hold them accountable and minimize the negative impact they have on the community and its closest neighbors. We still have had data centers around or we have not had data centers around long enough to truly know the long range impact on air, water, ground toxicity levels, uh the mental and physical health impacts, etc. We have four already existing. We have five already in the process. I know that there's two portions. How can we manage things moving forward for those new uh data centers, but we also have to go back and try to uh put things in place so that we can help our neighbors who are dealing with this on a daily basis. Um Mr. Whitaker, who is the attorney for Cyrus One, I wish you would like to take your ball and just go home because we're here. We are aware of what data centers are about. We were not aware of it earlier, but we're not giving.

Thank you. Your three minutes is up. Thank you. Madam clerk, could you please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment? Victoria Pavoc. Miss Pavoc. Is there Victoria Pavoc? I'll ask a third time. Is there a Victoria Pavoc wishing to offer public comment? Madam clerk, please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment. Rick Handell. Welcome, Mr. Handell. Good evening. You have three minutes beginning now.

I'm Rick Handell, lifelong resident of the city of Aurora. Very proudly raised a family in the city, was educated in the city of Aurora. Worked in the city of Aurora. Actually worked for the city of Aurora for 32 and a half years. Very proudly. The reason I'm here tonight is I'm going to break the flow a little bit, but I want to compliment the city council in general, Alderman Carl Franco, mayor's office, including the mayor as a former alderman at large for his efforts, and various city departments that have been involved and continue to be involved in the sound barrier wall for Orchard Road. I was an original resident of the Orchard Valley subdivision bounded by Orchard Road, currently Greenfield Drive, West Illinois Avenue in the south boundary of the Backer Company. We moved there in 1981 was pristine farmfield over to Deer Path and Hankis. The city told us at the time Orchard Road would come in 7 to 10 years. It came in in seven years. We worked with the city at the time, King County at the time. They were very informative and they work with us. In fact, if you know Orchard Road right now, just south of Indian Trail, it cuts a little bit to the west. That was to accommodate our subdivision at the time and keep the the noise level a little bit further west, if you will. When we moved in, Orchard Road was three lanes, north, south, turn lane. It was eventually expanded and because of our family expansion, we had to move. So we moved in in ' 81, we moved in '93 to bigger housing, but not far away in the Cherry Hill subdivision right down the road. So I kept track of what was going on out there because I was actively involved at the time with our subdivision when I lived there with Orchard Road coming in. And it was finally nice to see over the decades

that it was recognized that there would be and has been a noise problem out in that area. And again, I want to thank the city council because you all work together when an alderman brings something to you to have something passed. Alderman Alderman Frankle, thank you very much on behalf of myself, even though I lived a short way down the road, but I'm sure on behalf of the citizens out there for your consistent efforts to get a soundwall in that area. And my thanks to the city offices that work probably with you, finance, um, engineering most likely, and probably a couple other offices that I'm not aware of, but city government does work. Sometimes it's not pretty, but it does work. And I just wanted to thank you publicly and your peers on the city council and the various city departments that were involved in this endeavor to get that sound wall in the works and nearing completion out on Orchard Road on the far west side of Aurora. Thank you all very much for your combined efforts, your supporter of my alderman, Carl Franco. Carl, thanks for taking that up and dealing with it. I know based on my past city experience working with the city how difficult these things can be to bring through and finally bring through to fruition. And again, my thanks to the various city departments that were involved.

Thank you, Mr. Handel. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person now for public comment. Manuel Fernando Cardardoza. Mr. Cardardoza. Mr. Cardardoza. Third time I'll ask if Mr. Cardardoza wishes to offer public comment. Ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment. Ashley Stad.

Welcome Miss Stat. You have three minutes beginning now.

Hi. Um, thank you for providing this time for public comment and thank you to all the city of Abor staff who have worked on revising local ordinances and proposing changes that protect citizens um, resources and pockets. Um, I have a master's degree in environmental policy and almost a decade experience in the water industry. I've also participated in strategic energy management programs in ISO 50,0001 program development. The revisions requiring both power usage effectiveness and water usage effectiveness standards are a great starting point for creating operational performance standards that seem sustainable. But can we ask for more? Fox Metro is already aiming to offset its power by 40% with solar energy. I think we could ask for more from tech giants with deeper pockets. The proposed 25% peak load or 50% for 15 minutes on-site energy storage seems like a low bar considering the potential impacts to our electrical grid and energy pricing. Could they provide a micro grid, larger battery storage? Could they bring their own energy? Ultimately, residents should have to shouldn't have to foot the bill. We are already struggling with low wage jobs and rising costs of living. Additionally, when it comes to a 0.2 water usage efficiency per kilowatt hour, is this protective enough for our aquifers in the Great Lakes? 20 to 40% of the Great Lakes hydraological input is from groundwater. And these groundwater sources are depleting. According to a 2015 Illinois State Water Survey, by 2030, the Cambrian or Division aquifer system that supplies King County will not be able to meet monthly water demands. Aurora will eventually be required to connect to Lake Water, Lake Michigan water, just as DuPage County and Joliet have. How many

data centers will we approve before this becomes a closer reality? Withdrawals from Lake Michigan are required to be regulated through the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resource Compact. This requires registration and management of withdrawals of 100,000 gallons per day or more. How do data centers fit into this legally binding agreement? As a resident, I'm deeply concerned that these data center developments are moving too fast for legislator and regulators to adequately protect our natural resources and pocketbooks. After all, water is essential for life.

Thank you, uh, Miss Stat. I'll ask the clerk to please read the name of the next person wish to offer public comment. Rick Lawrence.

Hello. Welcome Mr. Lawrence. You have three minutes beginning now.

So I guess this week's topic is we don't want data centers. Well the data centers are coming no matter what. They could be built in Aurora or they could be built in the surrounding communities around us. Joliet's just approved one. It's going to be bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayers. Now, John, you took on a hund00 million worth of debt since you've been mayor. You said we're broke. You have no nothing on the table as source of new revenue to offset the cost to the taxpayers. The data centers seem like they're not asking for anything from us. this nonsense that they're taking our water, they don't build it like that anymore. Um, the one you approved in October covered all the concerns that everybody has raised about their situation. To say that, oh, if you don't build it in Aurora, it's not going to it's going to save electricity. Build it in Yorkville. They're building in in Joliet. The only difference is they're getting the money and Aurora is not. So we can say we don't want any industry, but what do you want? We didn't want gas station the last time, the last meetings. We don't want this. We don't want that. We don't want that. So now we come out, we're all public about, oh, we're going to do the strictest regulations on data centers. What what message does that send to anybody else in the area about developing anything in Aurora? They don't like you. They're going to restrict the heck out of you. this nonsense about privacy and all this stuff that you're going to sue them if there's some privacy. Your phone has more information about you than anything that you're gonna find in a data center. That phone knows you went to McDonald's this morning. That phone knows who you called. That phone knows everything about you. You're not going to sue a data center. But you need to attract

economic development for the taxpayers. You don't have a lot of options. The car dealers all went to other cities. The Costco went to other cities. What What's the What's What's the options here, John? You don't want warehouses. You don't want gas stations. What are you doing for the taxpayers? We pay the highest tax rates in the area. The the residential taxpayer always gets screwed in Aurora. You're not offering anything to offset that cost. Those the ones that were built originally, yeah, they they were built in the wrong place and they used old technology and the generators, they're working to fix that. I'm sure that any good negotiator could get those people incredible amounts of money for their homes. Probably twice what they're worth just to solve the problem. But you have to start thinking about the taxpayers here in Aurora. They're getting

Mr. Lawrence. Two minutes is up. Ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wish to offer public comment. Luis Hernandez.

Good evening everybody. Uh good evening Mr. Hern. You have three minutes beginning now.

Yes. Thank you. A few you guys you know me. I'm here to help uh the community for a while. I just move out for take a break for a little bit. I'm back. I'm back to same thing. Help the community. We see like uh kids right now. They walk away and I live now close to a school. First of all, want to start with that. We have I have pictures with those people selling food. Okay. just across the street for the where's the I forget the name of the school in jungo. Okay, they don't have permit for the city of Rora and from the health department I have and there's the other guy too. He doesn't have permit. How we know this food is the bag is on the floor and the kids coming out the school and start eating from there. How we know? And I asking this guy if he get a permit or not. He said no. Okay. And I asked him this lady too said no. And when I take the picture, this guy start getting like a little bit worse. Not really bad. But she said, "Hey, why you taking pictures of me?" You know who I am? You had to know who I am. Say you traed me good. And the police officer that was coming over uh right away right there. They was running. This is my first one. My second one I know I have three minutes is the traffic in Jungle Street. Okay. The officer I was talking him afterwards that he said there's not a traffic. where I take pictures to prove you guys. There's a big traffic right there and even the assistant of the school, the principal, it was next to this lady selling product, food, and she never asking anything to this lady

if they got a permit from the city of Oura or the health department. Never. And I show up. One of those officers, they got a marry me. I forget to her business card to bring it over to mention the name. One name is Omar, one of those officers. So, and also I have those motorbikes right here that they they start making a speeding run the area and the school after hours those guy right you can see that I'm sit down here in my house and I see when they're in front of me when they say ready let's go ready boom and start speeding up. I called the police. They say nothing we can do. We cannot chase it. My sergeant said we cannot walk out of way of the car and chase it them because they can go through the houses or around through the houses. If you take the bikes, the parents can go and pay the fine and get a device back and they still getting in the streets. So why is the rules of city of Aurora to control all those kind of situations for our neighbors?

Thank you, Mr. Hernandez. Your three minutes is up. I'll ask the deputy mayor to please uh connect with Mr. Hernandez to take his phone number. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wish for public comment. Kevin Lennon.

Welcome Mr. Lennon. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thank you Mr. Mayor and city council. Uh so Kevin Lennon I work for CME Group. Uh we're the leading derivatives uh marketplace in the world. We operate out of 2905 Deal Road, the data center there. Um, we have critical infrastructure there. We are designated by the Federal Regulators as a systemically important organization. Uh, we are heavily regulated by the CFTC, SEC, and the Federal Reserve, and they have, you know, high expectations on us for our reliability. Um so back in 2007 we purchased 2905 Deal Road. Uh and we converted it into a data center abiding by all the rules at the time. Uh we opened it in 2010. So we've been operating uh in in this data center since you know for 16 years now. Um we you know pride ourselves on being good corporate citizens and good neighbors. Uh we've done uh you know when we built the building we did a whole series of things to minimize noise. We built uh enclosures around our generators. We added larger um mufflers essentially on top of them. Uh we've uh done extra things to uh minimize the amount of um of air pollution from the diesel generators. Uh we have uh approximately 70 employees that work for CME Group that are residents of uh of Aurora and you know clearly their interests are aligned with ours. So I I hope that you'll consider that. Um we're asking that you consider uh you know taking all of that into consideration uh we did a sale lease back of the data center to Cyrus 1 uh back in 2016. The idea was that they are experts at running data centers and we were not. Um, ours is the most easternmost data center uh of the

campus. Like I say, we've been operating running these uh uh uh running these generator tests monthly. Uh you know, on Saturday mornings from 9 to 1, uh we're asking that you allow us to continue to do that. We're willing to make compromises to try to address some of the concerns. We're willing to go to quarterly instead of monthly. We're willing to do uh you know extra things to um make it more palatable. Um but it's really important to us and you know and we also are asking that you make the exception that so our our generators we have 20 there's 22 generators for the building. We're a tenant now that we did the sale lease back. Uh our generators are in uh generator barns these enclosures to reduce sound. uh and they basically have to be in order to have the best most robust um you know test. We need to operate and test them in groups uh of either six or eight generators. Again, they're they're enclosed and we've tried to minimize the amount of sound. The reason that's so important,

Mr. Lennon, your three minutes is finished. Thank you. Last clerk to please read the name of the next person wish to offer public comment. Laura Evans. Just so the speakers are aware, we're trying to sort out a little technical difficulty with the green lights. We do have a threeminut uh clock that we're sitting here and monitoring closely. Uh your three minutes begins now.

Okay. Members of the council, today you have an opportunity to set the standards for data centers in Illinois as well as the country. City staff approved the data centers next to our neighborhood without fully understanding how disruptive data centers can be. But now you do. Lucky for you, unfortunately for us, while staff well and we're here to make sure you don't repeat the same mistakes that you've already made. While staff can only speculate, we're living proof of what these facilities sound like and how they affect the residents. Our property line is 1,074 ft from the chiller wall to our property line and about 1,000 ft from the generators. We hear the sound constantly. I can hear the chiller fans in my yard, in my house. I can hear it in the shower. I hear it all the time. It never goes away. It's just that constant low hum that kills. We know all these numbers. So, we should make it farther away. Go with at least a half a mile. The 2,640 ft should be required just to make sure that it the noise is lessened. Where are there where are the studies showing that staff recommendations outweigh those of us that are experiencing it with this distance? The noise limits must also be strengthened. We recommend a maximum of at least 50 dB during the day and 40 or 40 at night. It should be lower but will compromise but also who will be moderating the compliance, who will frequent who will frequently measure how will they be measured and what penalties will be imposed. Without enforcement, these limits are meaningless and residents are left repeatedly calling police and city officials with no resolution. The constant low frequency hum is not an is not just an inconvenience. It's also a real psychological and physical effects. Prolonged exposure creates stress, sleep depia,

diminished to quality of life. Basically, residents are being subjected to the conditions of torture similar to what the industrial noise does to our homes. We also need answers for emergency scenarios. Last April, when the transformers failed, residents, we endured 72 hours straight of extreme generator generator noise. The health and welfare of your residents should be considered when you decide on the details of the ordinances. What protections are in place to make sure that this doesn't happen again, but it will happen again because that's what the generators are for. Thank you for adding conditional use, but please make sure that it also mentions that it's it should help no harm should be offered to public health, safety, or property values. And the burden of proof is on the applicant, not on the residents. We're also asking for transparency. Learn from what what has happened here. Do not settle for the minimum requirements that fail to protect the people that you represent. Set the bar. Set it high. And your residents deserve that. be the standard that other cities and other states are looking at. Do it the right way.

Thank you, Miss Evans. Thank you. Ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment. Keith Evans.

Welcome, Mr. Evans. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thank you. a followup uh some follow-up comments um pertaining to the presentation that John Curley gave last week. Number one, the sound decibel chart that John presented. I don't think that chart is really comparing apples to apples. I believe that it indicated the 50 dB is like the noise of a of a dishwasher. I guess that's if you're standing right next to it. This is much different than the sound energy produced by 1,480 cooling fans on top of the Cirrus One buildings. For example, you'll get 60 dB from soft background music, which is not the same as 60 dB from a data from the data center fans. The cooling fans produce a low frequency, which is broadband, a constant irritating hum that the brain focuses on. That's a fact. What's being overlooked is the amount of energy behind the noise. Energy that penetrates through the windows and walls. 1500 fans sounds a lot like a large military plane preparing for a takeoff. The propeller spinning, but it never takes off. We'll get a break sometimes if the wind is blowing in the right direction. Number two, when the city or an independent contractor performs sound testing on these data centers, how will they know the data centers are actually running all their cooling fans and not just like 20 or 30% of the fans to skip by? Number three, uh who do we call when we feel the data center is in violation? And will this place be aware of what to do, how to confirm there's a sound violation? if it requires special trained people or special equipment. Are they prepared to come out after 900 pm or on weekends? Number four, it was mentioned that new data centers will need to have attenuation screens in place. This is another fact. Such screens only block a small amount of sound which is which is the sound most of that sound is coming from the housing or but it really doesn't block the sound coming from the

housing units. Most of the noise generated will travel upward from the fans which is then carried by the wind. 45 dB can jump to 70 with as little as a one mile per hour breeze. Again, that's a fact. What about weekends? Are data centers going to be allowed to um get away with 57 dB during the day when people are out trying to barbecue? Number six, council mentioned the rights of Sirrus one that uh because they built something, they have a large investment, they now have rights and we cannot simply take those away. Do you realize what that statement sounded like to us sitting here? What about our rights? We invested a lot of hard-earned money to build our future. We did not get money from investors looking to make a profit. So why is it okay for Cirrus One or any other big businesses to take away our tranquility, our sanity?

Thank you, Mr. Evans. Clerk to please read the name of the next person wish for public comment. Leo Wright.

Welcome, Mr. Wright. You have three minutes beginning now.

Good evening, everybody. Um, you know, there's a lot been said over the past weeks about what um what Cyrus 1 has caused to our community. Again, it may not be about all data centers, but this this moratorum was put in place because what Cyrus 1 has done to our community and what the city had allowed them to do, they started the fans and the generators with no sound attenuation put in place whatsoever. not not until we started complaining that they started to uh investigate and uh get some engineering and then start putting up some temporary uh sound barriers around the fans and now they claim that the sound walls around the fans have been completed. Well, there hasn't been any effect and I believe Mr. Mayor, you were in our neighborhood this weekend to experience it firsthand. Thank you very much. Um, they say that the the walls are up around the generators and we shouldn't hear them. We got a notice today that they're going to run the generators. So, why would they even give us a notice if these sound walls are going to take care of the noise? The last time they ran the generators, they said that we may have to leave our house and they would even pay us pay us to stay at a hotel, but it has to be in Aurora. I'm sure when the executives of Cyrus One come to town, they don't stay in a hotel in Aurora. Um, you know, Curley kept referring to at the last meeting about the sound, you know, 59 dB should be good. You know, um, that's what staff believes. Well, who the hell is this staff? Are they sound engineers? Are they aiologists? Do they really know what they're talking about or do they just look up things on the internet? I mean, this is a very serious situation we have here and it's being taken very lightly. There has been when you put up a new stoplight at an intersection, you get a traffic study, you bring out engineers. When you

probably did the sound wall on Orchard Avenue, you probably had an engineer design it and do some sound testing. There was nothing done with this. It was just slapped together. Again, uh the gentleman from CME stated that there was sound attenuation put up. Maybe around that first building was a completely different system, but when Cyrus once started this system, they had nothing. Everything was completely exposed and there still are generators exposed. You could see them from deal and you could see them from Eola. So there's still a lot of work to be done there. You know the going back to studies, was there any health studies investigated or was any expertise brought in on that? What the long-term effects are from the fumes from these generators and the sound that we constantly hear? You know, Cyrus one claims they put out statements. They're such good neighbors. Nobody would want them in their neighborhood based on what they did in Aurora. It it's a travesty what they did in Aurora. Um, you know, one thing that was brought up last year.

Thank you, Mr. Right. Thank you very much. Please do the right thing. We we we not only ask, we demand that you do the right thing. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next Kevin Bishop. And we're close to our 30 minutes, so we'll let Mr. Bishop speak and finish. That'll be 30 minutes. Welcome, Mr. Bishop. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thank you. Um, I'm a supporter of law enforcement. Um, I've donated thousands of dollars uh to the police department. Also, like done police training for the last like couple decades. And uh in my neighborhood, we've had an issue with car burglaries going on. Uh neighbors came out to like go ahead and see who was like going up to the car doors and trying to open up car doors. They're going from car to car. um a police officer like went ahead and like stopped me because I was videotaping the person that was going from car to car. I was being polite, standing far away, not inciting anybody, not stating any not like um interacting with the person going to the different cars. The uh police officer stopped me uh detained me, wanted to like question me. He investigated the situation, found out that I was doing nothing wrong. Uh he stated that um he wanted to get my driver's license. Um since I wasn't doing anything wrong, I didn't have to give a driver's license. Um after that, the uh police officer violently pushed me in the street. Uh I crossed the street legally, peacefully, slowly. He then said I was arrested for jaywalking and because I wouldn't give him my ID, I was also like arrested for obstruction. Um, I went ahead and filled out a complaint with the Aurora Police Department. the police department found out that a the police officer didn't use any violence and b he didn't violate any procedures. Like falsifying that I like unlawfully cross the street is definitely that. And pushing me is also

like violent. Um it's all on like videape. So like you can like check I did nothing wrong. Um, after the like police complaint was like not taken seriously, I uh attempted to like do something with the civilian review board. There's no way to like file a complaint to the civilian review board. I filed a foyer request to get the procedures for the civilian review board. I was denied access to seeing what those procedures are. Those are supposed to be part of the city ordinance. Additionally, we've had like shootings in the neighborhood, um drunk driving accidents, and then like other like DUI incidents. I would call 911 about that. The like 911 people refused to like take that stuff seriously. Uh they'd be argumentative. It wasn't a shooting. It was fireworks. Um I've filed foyer foyer requests on that type of stuff. Um I've tried to file complaints.

Thank you, Mr. Bishop, your three minutes is up. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Mayor. So, that concludes someone follow up with that concludes. Uh I'll ask the uh chief of staff or deputy chief of staff take your contact information because it's not on here. Um Alderwoman Smith or Alderwoman Bade, sorry. I wanted to make a motion to let all the speakers speak. Second. There's a motion on the floor to extend a public comment period to allow the seven remaining speakers to share their comments. Uh motion was made by Alderwoman Bade, seconded by Alderman Larson. Any discussion on this? Yes. Motion. Alderman Bug.

Yeah, you you have to reset the time. So if three minutes per speaker or a set time, so we have the third that just concluded 30 minutes of the set time. Uh I've been resetting my timer on my watch uh on my clock. So I'm saying so that future speakers aren't unlimited. We need to in this motion set a new time frame. Well, there's in seven they should get it before 7* 3 is 21 minutes. Okay. Yeah, we need to state that it will be 3 minutes. She just she didn't say that in her motion.

Okay. So we would be asking the public just to limit their comments to three minutes under the rules for public comment as they pertain. Any other discussion? Let's clerk to please call the mo roll on the motion and second. Barrero. Yes. Garza. Yes. Messakos. Yes. Nunes. Yes. Franco. Yes. Seville. Yes. Benuelos. Yes. Smith. Yes. Bug. Yes. Bade. Yes. Larson. Yes. White. Yes. 12. Yes. Zero. No.

Uh the motion is approved. Uh we'll continue with public comment for the next seven speakers. You'll be limited to three minutes. Uh please feel free to read the name of the next person wish to offer public comment. Brian Castro.

Welcome Mr. Castro. You have three minutes beginning now.

Good evening councilmen and women. Um, my wife and I live at ground zero. We call it ground zero because we're the closest home to Cyrus 1, building 3. Uh, we've been living in that home now for 19 years. In 2010, when CME put that first warehouse, repurposed that first warehouse for a data center, it was of no problem to the neighborhood. Uh, the generators would run every now and then. there' be a little bit of noise, but it didn't take long to get that uh resolved. There was no other other noise that was bothering any of the homeowners. Then they added building two onto the warehouse. Fortunately, they put that building close to Deal Road and kept it away from the homes. But the problem became a real big problem when building three was built, put on the prairie path, and put as far back on that property, away from Deal Road as it could possibly be. and it was bigger than the first two buildings together. It is a noise maker that doesn't isn't getting any quieter. It's it's a problem. The walls that have gone up, the uh attenuation that have gone up, nothing has quieted the noise. On Sunday, just two days ago, Sunday, the noise was as loud as it's ever been. And people in the audience here were hearing it a mile away. It's very disturbing. All I can do, we we didn't get the opportunity to do what people are doing here tonight because we never had a chance to stop what Cyrus one did with building three. It's too close to any homes. We really need to keep a distance between homes and these buildings. Yes, it's progress. Not a whole lot of money coming out of these data centers. When you compare it to the property taxes that Aurora Aurora residents pay, it's peanuts. and it's not worth the quality of life degradation that we're all having to

face. I would encourage any of you who want to take a weekend and spend it at Camp Castro to come by. I'll put you up for the weekend and you can experience exactly what none of you would want to have in your backyard. I encourage you to do whatever you can to put some really restrictive guidelines on any data centers that come to this town. Best to all of you. Thank you, Mr. Castro. Last clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment. Marcy Kersch. I'll give you a one minute warning. How's that? I might be done before then. You might. Thank you. You have three minutes beginning now.

Okay. My name is Marcy Kersh and my family and I have lived in Stonebridge and Aurora for over 32 years. I live approximately one mile from the Cyrus 1 data facility. At a previous meeting, I shared the nightmare of living near data centers. And I'm back again tonight to encourage the city of Aurora to permanently ban the construction of future data centers. While I am slightly encouraged that the city has planned to extend the data center moratorum, I am dismayed that the city has clearly not listened to Aurora residents. We do not want any more data centers. In reviewing the zoning zoning ordinance text amendment 26-0112, it is evident that the city does not fully understand the negative physical and mental damage that the constant droning noise of data centers causes to local residents. In their proposed amendment, the city suggests that there should be quote clear day and nighttime noise limits at facility property line and recommends that decibel levels be restricted to 59 dB during the day and 49 at nighttime. Wow, that sounds great on paper. However, what about the other properties of sound that are being completely ignored? As anyone living near the Cyrus 1 data center can tell you, the constant unbearable noise that perminates permeates our yards, our homes, our brains is a low frequency incessant hum which can only be compared to torture. Low frequency noises between 63 and 250 hertz, which is exactly where data centers operate, is not detected by standard decibel readings. Yet measuring hertz is not even discussed in the city's proposal to regulate data centers. What is discussed is a woefully inadequate suggestion that data center components such as chillers or generators quote cannot be located within 1,00 to 1,500 ft of any

residential, hospital, or educational use measured from the property line. What about the fact that sound travels? And low frequency sounds have been scientifically proven to travel incredibly long distances that are measured in miles, not feet. Low frequency noises exactly like those created by data centers have larger wavelengths and they bend around obstacles, walls, and are not easily absorbed by the atmosphere. This explains why the Cyrus 1 sound wall, their immature landscaping, and any sound mitigation strategies that do not consider hertz or frequency are and will continue to be absolute failures. As a resident, a taxpayer, and a voter, I do not understand why the topic of discussion is how do we make it better for data centers to come to Aurora when the true topic of discussion should be how do we mitigate the damage already done and keep data centers out of Aurora. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Kirch. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing for public comment. Lynn Farmer. Lyn Farmer, take your time. Welcome, Miss Farmer. You have three minutes beginning now.

Hello. Okay. Um, this is not going to take uh long. Um, and I came here to ask actually initially, do any of you council members live near uh a data center. Um, and when it was going up, I'm actually like around the corner um from Cyrus 1. And they are currently uh digging up. Actually, I have flags in my yard for electricity, sewer, and water. Although, I asked Kameed, "Are you going to be digging my yard?" And they said, "No." But here's the thing. Um, I was reading articles about it and, uh, the former mayor Irving pointed out that once built, um, Cyrus 1 will contribute $1.1 million a year in property taxes and another $1 million in utility taxes for a total of about $20 million over the next 10 years. Great. Okay. Because I don't want to be paying taxes for it. Um, and then I also read that the city and Cyrus One negotiated a deal in which the company paid Aurora $1.5 million to compensate for the change in land usage um that they're currently using. And so my question is where did that $15.5 million go? Okay. My only thing is data centers, they're not going to stop. Okay, I realize that because I'm an old person. I've been here for a while. But how is Cyrus 1 contributing to the local community? What charities do they support locally? What charities do they support locally in Aurora in the communities? How is the company giving back to the local community, the Aurora community? I've read their um um their news articles and they talk about the charities that they uh participate in that they're not local. They're not in Aurora. They're in other parts of the

state. So, will the local communities be looking at tax breaks or are we just absorbing more cost from big business? Thank you. Thank you, Miss Farmer. Ask clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing for public comment. Julie Morz.

Welcome, Miss Morz. You have three minutes beginning now.

Good evening. I get that we need to balance the legal aspects of data centers along with the impact that they have on the community. I have three points I want to make. Distance, decibels, and compliance. First, distance. The most effective first line of defense. The most reliable way to prevent noise, diesel, and vibration impacts is distance. Everything else is an attempt to manage a problem after it already exists. We all which we also need. When facilities are placed too close to residential areas, the city takes on a permanent enforcement burden, monitoring complaints and disputes. Clear distance requirements are different. They are objective, defensible, and prevent conflict before it starts. I support Alderwoman Bade's amendment which would require a half mile minimum separation from residential areas. This ensures a strong first barrier while still allowing data centers to operate. Two, noise standards must reflect real world conditions. Proposed limits assume predictable sound, but our lived experience shows otherwise. Does the modeling consider how wind carries noise? How about a 10 mph wind versus a 15 versus a 20? The nearby data center already exists proposed limits. At my home two blocks away, we measure about 50 to 75 dibels depending on the day. The low frequency noise is a public nuisance. I propose 49 dibels a day, 39 dibbels at night at the property line. We should have continuous noise monitoring on street lights, someone recommended in the closest subdivisions, which is published daily, weekly on a website neighbors can access. We need a dedicated city official to review the data and act immediately. Third, enforcement must have teeth. Standards matter only if enforced. Like regulations in Florida, I'm proposing

fines scaled to facility size for meaningful compliance. For the first 30 days, a warning only, no fines applied. The next 30 days, $1,000 a day per unit. For example, if there's three generators, five cooling units, and 20 rooftop units, that's 20 units. So $1,000 per day times 20 units, that's a 20,000 a day fine. after 60 days a 5,000 per day per unit that in this situation would be $100,000 if still unresolved kind of getting teeth to these uh data centers that are making the big bucks after 90 days injunction. The data center would no longer be able to operate until they can comply. This is not about stopping data centers. It's about ensuring they operate responsibly, comply with real world conditions, and do not burden neighborhoods. I urge the city council to adopt all three measures together. Distance, decibels, and compliance. And since my three minutes aren't up, I also want to know what more you can do about Cyrus 1. I honestly just can't take it anymore.

I was sitting outside this past Friday and is up. 20 minutes. Thank you. I'll ask clerk to please read the name of the next person who start public comment. Paul just go. Paul, just go.

Sorry if we butchered your name. Your three minutes begins now.

Hello. Uh, my name is Paul and I got to say my piece and dip because I got homework. But we all know that data centers are giant heat exchangers. They use ceiling fans, chillers, diesel generators. The vibrations caused by this heavy duty industrial equipment can couple with the building structure, turning the facility into a giant speaker cabinet that pushes low frequency sounds into the ground and air already more so than what they are to generate. These low frequency waves or infrasound are sound with low frequency. Humans can't hear it. Now, it's been uh observed with natural phenomenon such as earthquakes, volcanoes erupting. That's why you see animals preeminently fleeing sites of natural disasters. Okay? Okay, so you can't hear it, but it's still a wave of vibrations that penetrates materials and it's hard to contain due to long wavelengths. So barriers like bushes and trees, dirt mounds, fences, walls, ineffectual. Try soundproofing a tsunami. You can't. So it also travels pretty far. The audible sounds can be heard from roughly a half mile to a mile away or more. But while infrasound travels even further than that, it can travel around 2 miles. And in certain conditions at night when the air is still and traffic dies down, sound can actually be refracted back down to the ground instead of dissipating into the air through a process known as atmospheric ducting from temperature inversions. Now, medical research and sound studies have shown that infrasound can cause feelings of awe or fear in humans. A scientist at Sydney University's auditory neuroscience lab reports growing evidence that infrasound may affect people's nervous systems by stimulating the vestigular system in the ear which has been shown in animal models to to aquate about sea sickness. Lo and behold, what are we seeing here from people living near data centers in Texas and Memphis? Symptoms of anxiety, discomfort, fatigue, nausea. I'm not a scientist, but I can put two and two

together. Without proper research and cautious regulation, it would be foolhardy to rush a data center into areas packed with residentials, commercials, and industrial work zones. We're talking lawsuit of the century. We're talking about the health and well-being of people in generations to come. through your powers, make it a business blunder to place a data center in Aurora and tell these shortsighted, greedy individuals looking to build these things to look somewhere else for their noxious facilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Last clerk to please read the name of the next person wishing off for public comment. Mr. Abbott Chowri I rectify how you pronounce my name first you know it's abhijijit chi abichijit abijit chri all right all right I didn't recognize it Jay sorry that's okay that's thank you you have three minutes speaking now

thank you I think Julia actually read my mind and she spoke all the points that I had to so I agree with her uh but I I would like to add to that um I do support that the data center should be as far away from the resident I mean we started with around like 2.5 mi but now I think we are back to like you know half a mile I think we can compromise that but at the same time I strongly support restricting data centers to M2 zoning only and I respectfully urge the city council to adopt the recommendation already made by the Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission in their meeting. Um that's one thing. Now the second thing is about the noise. Uh we said that we have the more restrictive noise levels but that's not true. Bloomington does a much better job than us. They have a uh low frequency noise levels that they have actually proposed and that is 50 decibel at the property line, 35 decibel at 25 ft and 30 decibel at 50 ft away from the property line. I think we can do better than that. If not, at least adopt that. Um thirdly, the enforcement thing. I mean I we cannot dig out the cyus one data center from here but I strongly believe that existing data centers need to comply with the ordinance that we are passing. If they need some time we can give them time but they need to comply with the ordinances. We cannot have eight data centers not complying with us the the new ordinance and all the new data centers they have to comply with it. That's not fair to them. That's not what we want. the best way is to regulate them and the new old data centers they need to comply with the new regulations. Now I I do understand that we are under pressure to act before the moratorium expires but adopting the planning and zoning commission's recommendation to place the data centers in M2 zonings and pairing that with clear noise standards

like those used in Bloomington and proper enforcement criteria is exactly how city reduces legal risk while still allowing responsible development. Taking a little extra care now will prevent much bigger problems later. And lastly, most of you actually campaigned on green initiative and that is exactly what we are asking from you. You are doing a good job by looking into all the ordinations from the other cities and the counties. But trust me the best advice that you are getting is from the residents who are experiencing the various issues living next to the data center. I think common sense would dictate that you give more weightage to our experience and please do the right thing. Again, thank you and I hope you guys will really do the right thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chowry. I'll ask the clerk to please read the name of the last person wishing for public comment. Danielle Fischer.

Hi. Can you hear me?

Welcome, Miss Fischer. You have three minutes beginning now. Thank you. Um, thank you again for letting us talk and our input. Much appreciated. I've sent some emails. I hope some council members got a chance to read them. Um, thank you Councilman White for responding. One of my biggest concerns is still proper disposal of the contaminated water that it is not just being discharged because the water treatment plant cannot filter the types of toxins that they produce. Noise again is a big one which you've heard plenty of times tonight. The regulations allow 59 dB. I was at Cyrus 1 today and Channel 5 News wanted to do some interviews. They asked what I thought of the proposed regulations and I was honest. I said I didn't think they're strict enough. Today, a resident behind Cyrus, um Brian, he's here. Um his registered at 61 dB. It was very annoying. The new regulations allow for 59. That's not much less. Staff feels the farther away the less audible it will be. But a resident today at the same time registered about 60. She was about 1,200 feet away. When the wind blew, hers registered at 60. So that theory is wrong. There's another interesting another interesting fact is another guy that is farther away, more southwest of the data center can hear it louder where he lives even. So my point is sound travels and it jumps around. In these situations, it didn't get reduced. In fact, it increased when the wind blew. So, two people here also mentioned there's another type of sound, infrasound, which you can't hear, but it's damaging. It can cause seasickness symptoms. It can travel about 2 miles. I've read that enclosing the rooftop chillers reduces the noise. So, if you could please consider doing that, that might keep some of the noise down. I saw a video clip from uh CBS that said city of Aurora is planning to put the strictest regulations on data centers in the state and if not the country. I

don't know where they got that or you know but I mean I don't really feel that's true but you definitely could be the leader. That would be awesome. Please only allow them in warehouse zoning. Someone else mentioned that too. Lower the deciples. Increase the distance from residential. They shouldn't be allowed to negatively impact the environment and reduce residents quality of life. Please care more about the environment and residents rather than being sued by a data center. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Fischer. That concludes uh public comment section.

Uh next, we will hear both the consent agenda and the direct to council consent agenda in full. I'll ask the clerk to please read both agendas in full. 25795, a resolution authorizing a one-year contract with Air1 equipment for the purchase of protective gear for the fire department in an amount not to exceed $316,000 with two optional one-year extensions. 2600076, a resolution authorizing the director of purchasing to enter into an agreement with LDV Customs Specialty Vehicles for the construction of a negotiator vehicle for the APD crisis negotiator team in an amount not to exceed $200,000. 2600091, a resolution authorizing the director of purchasing to purchase services for amendment five of the system maintenance agreement with L3 Harris for $284,189. 2600098, an ordinance amending chapter 6, alcoholic liquor, section 6-2, definitions, and section 6-8, classifications of the city of Aurora code of ordinances. 260137, a resolution authorizing the director of purchasing to enter into an agreement with Schroeder Asphalt Services in the amount of 1,58,300 for the two 2026 citywide paving pavement patching for water and sewer maintenance. 260138, a resolution to award the the Star Avenue water main replacement project located in Ward One to Gerardi Water and Sewer in the bid amount of $467,16. 260154, an ordinance prohibiting the use of groundwater as a portable water supply by the installation or use of portable water supply wells or by any other method. 260155, an ordinance approving the acquisition of certain real property generally

located on the east side of North Farnsworth Avenue, north of Built Road by eminent domain or otherwise. 260170, a resolution consenting to a short-term lease extension until the end of 2026 to FR2 at the Aurora Airport. 260175, a resolution authorizing emergency procurement for interim transportation services with go- go grandparent for the city of Aurora Ride Solution transportation program through August 31st, 2026 in an amount not to exceed $150,000. 260179, a resolution approving reduction number one for Madina of Aurora, Village Green subdivision, unit 24, lot 3, 2931 Village Green Drive. 260182, a resolution approving reduction number one for Fox Valley Mall, phase 2, residential, 195 Fox Valley Center Drive. 260183, approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, March 10th, 2026 city council meeting. Samud

having heard both the the direct to council and uh consent agenda, is there a motion to approve both items? Motion one was made by Alderwoman Garza, seconded by Alderwoman Smith. Uh are there any other questions or agenda items that council members would like to remove from the consent agenda? Uh hearing none, I'll ask the clerk to please call uh the role. Morero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no.

Uh, motion carries. The consent agenda and direct council consent consent agenda are both approved. Uh, next we will move to the item of attention for the evening. Unfinished business. I'll ask the clerk to please read uh the first second, third, and fourth agenda items and we'll have discussion on those. 20 actually let's just read the let's just read the first one and we can discuss it and okay move forward

2600092 an ordinance amending the code of ordinances city of Aurora by adding chapter 50 Aurora responsible data center ordinance and chapter 51 data center privacy protection ordinance pertaining to performance standards and operational reporting requirements for data centers.

Okay. So, if uh I know John, we have a few new slides. Uh both you and Allison do. I'm guessing that the council has kind of seen everything that's gone forward. What I've asked uh staff to do is prepare the changes uh that are made. And there's a couple slides that they've done to look at some of the potential sound uh variations that we might have. I'm not sure if you or Allison goes first. And then also there was some questions uh from the council about revenue. Uh I know there was other questions from the council that we tried to answer. I know alderman Messiakos had asked for a comparison between this and the state legislation which was emailed to everybody. So I think we've tried to answer all the emails and questions that were coming all the way up until 15 minutes before the meeting. Go ahead, whoever's first.

Uh yeah, I'll start and then uh I think Allison will talk about uh some of the revenue questions. Uh so if you go ahead and advance uh John so of the conversations that we've had uh with council wanted to highlight a couple items uh from the last meeting that there was a desire to um highlight uh a little bit more than we had on the prior presentations. So as you uh as you've noticed the moratorum has been extended. We exercised the 30-day extension that was part of the original moratorum language. So that's already in place and that's in case your deliberations need to extend past this evening. So um that 30 30-day moratorum would cease either at the end of 30 days or adoption of new legislation that uh uh where we didn't need the moratorium in place anymore. And then uh I also was asked uh by some of council to um mention that there is an existing data center in town which currently meets the proposed PUE and WE standards. So it is a possible standard to achieve uh and those are standards that the industry is familiar with. John if you'd ext extend again. Go ahead.

Yes. Uh thanks Ellison Lindberg director of sustainability. So um two of the questions that we have received from council previously were related to the property taxes that we receive from the data centers and um also the utility taxes. So this slide shows the property taxes that we received in 2024 for the data centers. On the left side, you can see the address. In the middle column is 2024. That's the total amount of taxes that they pay in property taxes. And then the far right column is the amount of taxes that the city of Aurora actually uh receives. So you'll see that it's about $400,000 total for all of the data centers um currently. And again, that was from tax year 2024. That's what we receive here for the city of Aurora. I will just mention that about 1.25 million of this total taxes goes to the schools. Um you can go to the next slide

and that's just for property taxes.

That is just property taxes. Yes. So in addition to property taxes, the data centers also uh generate tax revenue through the utility taxes. I think we call them mud here, municipal utility duty um taxes. And again on the left side you see the address. In the um next column over you'll see the estimated megawws. And I just want to be clear that um these are estimates. It has been very difficult for us um as staff to actually ensure that these are the proper numbers that these data centers are either building to or are at the capacity that they have reached. So I just want to be clear that this might be inaccurate but this was our best estimate. Um the top three are all um Cyrus one and we only have the information for all three together which was 90 megawws. Some of these other data centers are together. Um you'll see and we try to coordinate the colors with the maps that you have that show you which ones are constructed already. Those are the ones in orange. The purple ones are under construction. The green ones were submitted prior to the moratorum enactment. And then the blue kind of teal color is that the permit has been issued. So basically we have five slash4 data centers that are constructed already that are already paying the full amount of their um municipal utility taxes. So um that's the last thing I want to mention. So that third column, so the second from the right is what we think they would be um providing to the city at full capacity if they meet all the way up to those estimated megawws. But in 2026, this is what we're estimated we're actually going to get. And you will see that some of them the amount is lower than what the estimated at full capacity is or it's zero. So

that means it's either not operational yet or it hasn't achieved full capacity. So for some of these data centers, it can take a couple of years even after construction to get all the way up to full capacity. Um so those are the numbers that we have for you. Any questions on the uh tax portion, Mr. Mayor? Yes. Alderman White. So on this page, the mud tax, that's my first time really understanding hearing it. So I'm wondering does all the tax from uh the mud tax come to Aurora, the city of Aurora?

My understanding is that it does. Okay. And then also just briefly looking up this u is it all for um utility infrastructure or do you know it can be used for anything? My understanding is that it can be used for anything. Okay, thank you. Does anybody in finance have a different opinion on that? Okay, that's accurate. Any other questions? If not, we'll move to the next portion.

So, uh the deliberation at the committee of whole uh at committee of the whole uh centered around two topics with respect to sound. One was separation distance and the other was the decibel levels that we're proposing in the ordinance. We've prepared three maps uh based on a uh suggestion that we create a buffer distance of a half a mile. This first map uh shows the again the same kind of methodology we've shown you in the past. It shows the M2 parcels highlighted with red hash marks. The vacant M2 parcels are additionally highlighted with red outlines and the uh yellow indicates the halfmile buffer. You can see in M2 there are no locations that would meet that buffer distance. And as we discussed last time, uh our recommendations for uh uh litigation purposes would be that we do not um create a separation buffer that would not would preclude any of these uh facilities from getting into town. So, uh, M2, um, the scenario on this particular slide shows that there would be no, uh, permitted M2s because of that separation distance. Again, I want to highlight on this slide that, uh, the buffers that we're showing you are from residential property lines. It does not include educational or hospital buffers. That might additionally complicate things a little bit. Additionally, which well, I'll mention on the next slide. So, John, if you'd advance, please. So, uh, the next thing you were considering was, um, if if, as staff has suggested, still allowing the use within an M1 district with a conditional use. Um, the there are some areas maps, the same methodology. The hash, the hash, the red hashing shows the M1 in this

case. The um uh buffer distances are shown in yellow. you you'll notice that there is one there's actually two little slivers on the far east side. Those are both both part of Meridian um business park uh where uh it shows that there uh where we're not excluding the use entirely in M1 if M1 was to be a a conditional use for this use type. Uh I'd also have to add in addition to the fact that it does not include educational or hospitals which I don't don't think affects this this additionally does not show any unincorporated or residential from other communities. And though uh in that particular instance on the far east side there, there is some residential on the north side of the tracks in our neighbor to the east that if we determined that that uh would add to the buffer would eat into all of the eastern most little sliver that's left and a good portion of the uh western sliver that's left. Uh and also important to mention here as the um the there really are not vacancies in those existing uh parcels. So they're all developed currently. Um but there is some slivers of M1 left with a half mile buffer. John, if you'd advance again. So the next part of staff's recommendations was to still allow a conditional use within ORI. Uh this map, same methodology, shows the hashed areas that are uh zoned Ori in town and the buffer zone in yellow. Um same thing applies. There is some residential that might eat into pieces of the two areas that are shown. Uh one is Liberty uh business park just on the east side of Mitchell Road in between

the Tollway and Butterfield. That's the one on the east. And then we've got the business park way out on the far far northwest corner uh north of the tollway and uh west of Orchard Road. Uh again, portions of those might be eaten up if we're considering residential in neighboring communities and um in unincorporated areas. So there are there would be some areas potentially in a little few more areas in OI that could be developed with that buffer zone, but overall staff is still recommending that we do not there's not there isn't developable sites within uh using this buffer zone and we're still suggesting to use staff's recommendation of 1500 ft and 1,000 ft that we prepared and presented back in committee of the whole. So just for clarity and a summary, what they did was take the halfmile buffer and lay that out in the yellow circles. And the the arrows show uh this one shows ORI, the last slide shows M1, and then the first slide shows M2. And and the arrows indicate where there would be open space, developable open space if we were to have a half mile buffer.

Correct. Does anybody have any questions on these slides? Mr. Mayor, one Alderman White. So looking at the vacant areas, the areas highlighted in red, are these all the vacant spaces available or the vacant spaces that are large enough to accommodate a data center? Which which slide? So

all of them. So like I look at the the current one oi I see all these red areas. So is this all the vacant space available or are these the ones identified that can accommodate the size of a data center? We did not make a determination on what size a data center could be. These this is uh representing what's available. Uh and actually in the spirit of your question, there are some properties, this slide in particular, um the far two western highlighted vacant properties are actually not developable properties. They happen to be zoned Orai. They happen to be vacant. The westernmost is actually uh quality wetland right on the southwest corner of the tollway and orchard. uh that will not get developed because it's a wetland. And then then one immediately to the east of that is a detention facility for all all of the ORI uses around it and that also could not be eliminated and thus is not really developable. So uh in the spirit of your question, there's actually some of these areas that additionally would not be developable based on their um current encumbrances on the land.

Okay. Did you want to did you want to go back to look at any of the other slides? No, this is a good one. So, so looking at the it looks like just looking at the largest estimated megawatt data center which is 90 watt megawws. Looking at this slide, in your opinion, how many data centers actually would how many of these spaces actually could accommodate a data center, a larger data center or or do you know?

Well, um just looking at the land area, this exhibit actually would help highlight that. So, if you look at um if if you can recognize the tollway as the as the light white line that runs through the yellow uh buffer, uh it's just north of um well, it's south of south of my arrows. I think I think the easiest way to look at it is on the on the west side of the map, on the left hand side of the map, find the Orchard interchange if you see that there. And then follow the tollway further east. go all the way to the east to the furthest most blue hashed area that is Eola and Deal. Uh the the data center uh the largest data centers that we have in town are on uh parcels in that area.

Okay. If you look at the triangular area north of the tollway that's covered in uh yellow currently uh that has um that uh property uh site can facilitate one of our one of our largest uh data centers. So you'd be looking for a parcel of that size. Um and if you look it would be consolidating existing developed parcels in order to get there based on this map. So it' be it would be very difficult to get a facility that of that size on uh sites available if this were our buffer uh the buffer we used. Frankly, it's also going to be difficult if you use the staff recommended buffer as well.

So it sounds like on this map based on the vacant space, potentially one data center could be added from what you're saying. Well, I can't say that because there we we have data centers that range from 8 megawatts to 90 megawatt. Yeah. So I'm thinking more about the larger ones, the hypers scale ones. So the 90 megawatts, if we had another 90 megawatt location, uh there are only a few sites that could accommodate that, many of which would require consolidation of lots and demolition of properties that are already developed. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on these maps?

Okay, what else do you have for us? Um, so that's that's on the separation distance. Again, staff's recommendation still uh to council is uh uh the 1500 and 1,000 foot buffers that we proposed at committee of the whole. The next topic that we talked a lot about at committee of the whole was the actual real quick on this on the maps. I know that so the staff recommendation is 1,500 ft. Do you have those? I know you have 99 slides total, but yeah, we can we can scroll through scroll to them. You want me to do Does anybody want to see the the maps that were presented at the CO meeting that compare? Yeah, if we could bear with me one second. Let me get to the right spot in the slideshow and I'll be right back.

Trying to skip going through all 99 I think we got the right spot. Okay. So, uh these are the slides that were presented at committee the whole um again again the same methodology. This happens to have two buffer areas shown though. There's a kind of a darker I would call it an orange and then maybe a golden rod. The orange represents a thousand foot buffer from residential uses and the uh golden rod is 1500 from residential uses and remember the proposed ordinance that you have in front of you has two separation distances in it. Uh the 1500 represents u a distance from a rooftop chiller installation. We prohibit rooftop generators in the ordinance as proposed. The golden rod, I'm sorry, the orange color uh the 50 the thousand foot buffer represents groundmounted equipment uh for both the chillers and the generators. So if you recall, if you'll recall from this slide, uh for M2 uses, we uh essentially have the same scenario as we had in the previous slide with a half mile buffer. There really aren't any developable spaces that are left. There's just a s tiny little sliver uh on sites that are on Deal Road um up uh up in the north northeast part of that map there, but it's not even the whole site and you wouldn't be able to uh put uh ground

mounted or any rooftop mounted. So, I don't believe that ends up being developable in the end. So, that's the M2. And as we talked uh last uh last meeting at CO um this map if we limited it to this use this map was the reason why staff and and uh uh council are advising that we uh allow M1 and ORI uses as a conditional use um in lie of what was proposed by uh commission which was to to solely use the M2 map because we essentially have excluded this use through the means of a uh separation distance without uh just laying out that it's that it's prohibited. So that's the M2 map we looked at last time. Can you advance there? Thank you. Uh the M1 map um this shows uh again the M1 parcels. There is uh capable sites although already developed up on the tollway there. Um in between uh Eola and Farnsworth um I think Oedar Freudenberg is on one of those sites and there's some of the um some additional warehouses that are already developed on that on those sites there. And then there's a a chunk of land again uh developed uh but all and meridian that also would be potentially available for sites, but it wouldn't it would uh require demolition and redevelopment of sites if it was to go that way. Um so that's the M1 parcels if you chose to include M1 as a conditional use. And then we can go to ORI. I'm sorry, John. Yeah, there we go. uh oi. Uh this map again shows the same buffer conditions. Um and it does show additional locations where potentially a

conditional use could be approved. But again, it also shows most of those sites are already developed. Very few of the sites are not are undeveloped currently. Uh and again, even on this slide, those two western most aren't really developable at all for any for any purpose. So those are the maps that we considered uh from committee the whole. Any questions on these maps? Mayor Lash, Alderman Barrow.

Yeah, it seems like most of these lots are not large enough for a large data center. Is it makes it it makes it look like there's more available land that could be used for data centers when really it's you're showing things that aren't that aren't going to be, you know, usable for data centers. So it just makes it look like

I think the public is concerned when they see all this all this red. I don't know if there's a way to show it differently, but it doesn't to me it doesn't you know when you when you add all the different things the distances and such I I don't think in the in the uh acres it's required. I mean, you look at um Joliet and they had uh a data center um 800 800 acres. Yorkville, 1,000 acres and now looking at a second one for 500 acres. I just don't see that. These look like postage stamps.

Yeah. Well, you're right. We're not going to see data centers of those sizes here. We don't have the land available to do it. No matter what district you would would approve it in, um the only way you could develop something of that size is you've you would have to aggregate a good portion of these areas that are hashed. They're already currently developed. You'd be you'd be knocking down buildings that exist. You'd be consolidating lots. You might be wiping out uh right ofway in order to accommodate that and changing a bunch of utilities. So, you're absolutely right. We're not going to see these really large campuses like we're seeing at other places in the region. Alderwoman Smith.

Yes. Um John, am I right in seeing that oi um like at Orchard and Sullivan and up in that way they could be a bit larger and what size properties are those in comparison to what where like edges like that's a 30 acres that is on Eel Road. So, if we're looking up I'm sorry, Elder Woman Smith, I didn't catch the the example that you made was what? Edge. Oh, edged. Okay. Edged, which is a 30 acre property, right? And they're building two there, one's done, and they're building another that's 30 acres. I'm just trying to get a feel for what these two far west uh sizes are.

Tracy, do you remember the acreage for edged? Was it 206? Somebody told me that and I for and I I didn't write it down, Tracy. I'm sorry. Uh Tracy Basic, uh director of zoning and planning. Um the edged property is a little over 30 acres. Yes. Um and then if you want to compare that to what is um hatched on that left hand side, um that far portion that kind of sticks out, that's about 30 acres right there. So is that Orchard and Sullivan or the actually Orchard and Gateway? Okay. So that has about 30 acres. And then what about what?

Well, so just that little portion. So then there is another the the middle portion is kind of a it it's already a huge uh yeah distribution warehouse and then above that they would have another uh warehouse there and then to the west of that is detention. So only one in that particular area. So there's I think there's two vacant kind of in that area, but they're they're about 10 acres each. So the Orchard in Sullivan, which hugs up against 88, that's about 10 acres. Um Orchard in Sullivan. Yeah. Uh ish

ish. And the gateway is about how much you The gateway is probably I don't want to tell you the wrong acres. um that little portion that is off to the west and if I can point to it maybe um let me come point to it for you and this this little guy can we use the mouse on this um there's only two there you got it they got it

so what size do we think that Not very big. The bottom line is not very big

right there. That little All right. That that's Vision Court north of its whole way. Yeah. That little that little square is about 30 acres. Oh, okay. Bigger than we thought. And then what about um the Corey area? That's about 50 acres, but it has some things around it though, correct? Uh, yeah. So, there is some residential around it. So, that would um that would cut off a portion of what they could actually use uh for the gener the generators and for the chillers. Thank you. Any other questions on the maps?

Now, we're going to move also, Mr. Curley, welcome back. I know you came back from some personal time to come here and be with us. I appreciate the sacrifice on behalf of the residents here in the city council. Uh my question to you is can you and B and just following up on what Alderman Barrerero mentioned, do you have a number in regards to how many developable sites we have right now between these three zoning districts with a half mile buffer? with a half mile buffer or how many sites or no I'm sorry what is it 1,200 or oh 1500 and a thousand

um well this these would be the maps again it depends on which um uh underlying zoning category you're in um the uh quarry is probably the largest site that uh is available here that could have some development that has not yet developed. Uh, and then the other larger sites are are the ones that Alderwoman Smith highlighted on the far west side of town, north of the tollway. There's a couple sites there, but again, that would be some demolition and some repurposing of land. Right. So, we're talking about three sites right now. Uh, if if ORI was uh added to the list of conditional uses. Yes. Right. And I'm I'm sorry. Go ahead.

No, no. uh if we limited it as the uh plan commission suggested, there are none. Okay. To M2. Okay. So, right now we're talking about three. And are those three in addition just out there available than the applicants we have uh in a docket right now? In addition to I'm sorry. We have there four applicants right now. Yes. Right. So, those are separate properties. That's correct. So there's four properties uh planning planning a development in town, right? And at the end of the day, we have about three viable ones right now only after that

potentially if we accept all three as conditional uses. All three M1, M2, and OR. That's that's correct. Um and the uh the other thing I wanted to point out is that the um uh applicants that we have in that came in before the moratorium are all substantially smaller data centers than uh the large data centers we're talking about over on Eola road. Okay. Substantially smaller. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? One question. The maps. Alman Larson.

Thank you. Um yeah, so looking at uh this map compared to the half mile buffer map, it looks like the uh the main thing is the quarry that would be uh excluded. Do we think that would be enough to push us over the line into being considered exclusionary zoning uh legally? Ask trying to follow the map. That's okay. Can we go Can we go to the and side on the map? Yeah, it's that one right by the river, the the quarry. First of all, are you asking about the half mile map or the

uh Well, I guess I'm asking about the difference. So, the map that we have here about uh maybe 40% of the quarry is within that 1500 uh foot buffer and then in the half mile it would all be uh excluded. Um would that seems to be the one main difference in uh a property that can actually be developed on. Uh do we think that would be enough to push us over and make us lose in court uh as exclusionary zoning? Well, I mean the issue with the the half mile is it's not

sorry. Um the issue with the half mile is it's not just the Corey property because because it's I I I I appreciate that um Mr. Curley and and um um that his his um staff has put together the map showing you the vacant parcels, but the exclusionary zoning is not really about the vacant parcels because buildings can be demolished and rebuilt, right? So that's not really pertinent to the vacant to to whether or not they're outlined in red in here. The the problem becomes that with that halfmile buffer, what we're left with is um the you know is looking at areas that you know if you add the um North Aurora residential, which the way the ordinance is drafted, that would also count um you know, within the feet. We could amend the ordinance to not consider North Aurora or unincorporate residential. That's an option. Um and also um you know so so that piece there would would be excluded. So really all you're looking at what's left is a sliver um in M1. Um I think that that's there's a sliver in M1 that um um Mr. particularly has two arrows pointing at and then you're looking at a sliver on the far west side over by Orchard. Um those are the only properties that are not within um 25 um or 2640 ft of residential. I think the the other arrow that's in the middle of the page on the ORI is adjacent to residential in North Aurora. So that would be eliminated by the zoning ordinance as written. So So the the issue with that

is is that exclusionary zoning, you know, I I think it's it's pretty darn close. I mean, it it you know, I'm willing to argue it's not because there's there are lots. Um but but it's it's a it's very restrictive. Any other questions on maps? John, you ready to talk about sound? Yeah. The next topic was uh decibel levels. John, if you would uh go all the way all the way back to the top of the presentation. I think we're looking at one, two, three, four. Five, six, seven, the eighth slide, I believe.

No, I've reached an agreement with their

Okay. So, just a recap on what was presented at committee of the whole. Um and we were debating the uh decibel levels that staff had recommended. Uh the recommendation at committee the whole was 59 dB at the daytime and this is at the facility property line and 49 dB at nighttime on the facility property line. So I took some time and I uh you have some exhibits that show how the decibel uh levels changed according to distance and I'll talk about that a little bit and the next slide I wanted to respond to alderman bug's question from from committee of the whole as well. Uh oh I'm sorry it's the it's the following slide after the next slide. So uh a little bit more information on sound and I had I had mentioned um that decibel the decibel scale is not a linear scale. So each decibel is actually a a more substantive um uh decrease or increase uh than it might seem at first blush. And I found a chart that graph or the chart you saw on the last page. But I wanted to highlight that um on this particular uh reference material, it shows that uh if if if you took 70 dB as your arbitrary base of comparison at 60 dB, you're half as loud as 70 dB. So it might seem like you've gone down um uh what would it be? It' be uh great. it would be 13% or some 15% maybe if you did it by percentage if it was a linear scale but it's not. So you from from 70 to 60 it's half as loud. Uh from 70 to 50 you're a quarter as loud. From 70 to 40 you're 1/8 as loud. And from 70 to 30 you're a 16th as loud as the generating

noise of 70. Um, so I just wanted to um talk that through with everyone so they understand that the decibel scale uh is not linear and that each decibel represents more than you might think because we all think in a linear scale for most of the stuff that we do. Um I think that kind of covers that. The other thing I guess I'd highlight on this one is I was asked a question uh by Alderman Bug last uh meeting and there is a reference here I found for the the noise of a freight train at 50 ft which is 80 dB and I use that in the next slide John uh to to uh demonstrate noise from a freight train and again I want I want to reemphasize as I did at last week's meeting that um I understand the desire for this comparison and the intensity of the noise. But I do believe that the uh noise the characteristic of this noise is quite different from constant noise. And that's part of what I think you've heard from public comments for the last few weeks as well. But the comparison in order to understand the intensity I think is a valuable exercise and I appreciate being asked the question. So, um the there there's a few uh rules of thumb for noise and this inverse square law um that I used to calculate. I gave you a spreadsheet with uh a bunch of different uh decibel levels on it and what happens to the sound over distance. So, across the top of that chart, you'll see the distance is increasing. Uh it happens to be doubling. It happens to be doubling as you go across the top. Uh the reason for that is the uh rules of thumb that apply down below. So I used two rules of thumb and the actual calculation to uh uh to demonstrate that the calculations are all kind of aligning amongst the three different ways of looking at sound. Um on the

right there's uh probably a little more physics lesson here than anyone had planned on. Sorry about that. Uh the bottom graph I think is the most illustrative of the um of how sound dissipates over distance. And you can see the closer you are to the uh the noise that's being produced, the more of a curve that you're on and the further away it becomes more linear. So the the um uh as as things are as the distance is increasing your decrease is becoming more linear and less of the dramatic curve as you move further away from the sound. So back to our freight train um at 50 ft from the last table uh that indicated that we're at 80 dB at 50 ft. Um, in our scenario that we're proposing as the as the staff recommendation, that 80 dB ends up being 54 dB at 1,000 ft andif and 50 dB at 1500. And that's the that's the uh highlighted yellow there. You can see how it drops off as the distance increases. I I took some snippets to make this easier for everyone to see in the public, but you you can see uh the chart all the way from 100 to 5,000 square feet and what's in the legisar for you. Anybody have any questions on that one?

Yes, Alman Bar. Uh my my question is um there was a gentleman that mentioned um Bloomington having a lower decibel levels. Can you speak to that?

Yeah, I found out I found that comparison from the same gentleman was uh sent to us here late in the afternoon. I unfortunately was traveling back to work at the at the time from an off-campus training. Um uh in looking at Bloomington's uh uh ordinance, it was changed relatively recently towards the end of 24 into 25. um the uh their the they've focused on a sliver of sound again as their low threshold of 50 dB. So I I need I would need to analyze exactly what thresholds of sound that that low parameter is based on for Bloomington. But I want to remind everybody, we're adopting Aurora's ordinance for simplifying what is occurring for simplifying what is occurring so that everyone in the public can walk around with handheld meters and not have a very expensive piece of equipment that Illinois's law requires. Illinois's law still applies. So what I need to compare is what Bloomington's law is in relation to what the Illinois Pollution Control Board's law is. And if they're similar, our ordinance might be accomplishing the same thing when you overlay the two.

One other thing as we go into the sound discussion, a data center out that it that has been identified as one that's causing problems and they are working to mitigate the sound around the rooftop chillers. Uh we did meet with uh Josh this Josh Ree this morning and it's my understanding they haven't put the top on it. I mentioned that because uh that came up in public comment as well. Uh but so everybody on the council's aware that the mitigations to that data center are not complete yet. I don't know if you have any update on that.

No, that's that's accurate. I I could add a little color to that if you'd like. Um so what's occurred with the mitigations of the current facility that we've been getting complaints about is the attenuation walls have been in been put in place. They're nearly done with uh the second data center. They're done with the third data center. But it's really important to understand that that uh those improvements were the smaller improvements that are uh that are planned to take place here this year to mitigate the problem. The next thing that's going to happen is there's sound attenuation devices that are going to sit on top of every fan. It's essentially a baffle system that uh attemp attempts to disperse the sound and eat up some of the sound before it leaves the actual contraption sitting on top of the fan. And as the um uh engineered studies that we've been provided show, the uh the sum of all of those improvements will match the Illinois Pollution Control Board's standards. um that has that was provided to staff to evaluate when the uh remediation uh permits were issued and we're going to ensure that those meet those standards before we ultimately accept all of the remediation um and and also uh evaluate that as part of the violations before they get we consider them to be cured. And can you play just a little bit of talk about the sound engineer that did that study just so the council's aware of the process you use to come up with uh that they used actually.

Yeah. So um there there are sound engineers that work very specifically on these these type of issues. Um the uh data center that we're uh that's in vi that we've cited for violations has engaged a company called Ramble. uh the uh they prepare uh what ends up being a sound modeling study that shows here's all the improvements that we are going to undertake for the project and then uh run it through a virtual uh analysis and it it indicates what the decibel level is at rubber bands as you jump further and further away from the facility. So again this kind of gets back to the modeling I was saying before. It would be very difficult for us to engage somebody to do virtual modeling on a model that we don't possess. It's a ver it's a computer model that exists. And again, on the tail end of this of this project, when the remediations are indicated to be correct, and they provide us some information that it's been cured, we'll have the ability to go back and ensure that there's a actual in place test that demonstrates it's fully compliant with the standards that we can um uh insist on on that particular project. Okay. I know you have more. I just want to hit that because it was asked in public comment.

So that's the comparison to I'm sorry. Did you have your light on, Alman Masakos? Yes. Oh, sorry. Just to continue on that thought because the residents earlier in public comment brought up a brought up that subject, but also frequency frequency of testing. Uh, no, just the frequency, the hertz that was brought up. I mean, yeah. So, um, that's another element here that they're talking about.

It is. And again, the Illinois Pollution Control Board is, uh, set up in, uh, nine octave bands. So, it isolates the different frequencies. And that's what I need to compare with the number that, uh, he's provided from, uh, Bloomington, uh, to see if that, uh, Bloomington number is a higher number than the state number. Again, we're going to end up insisting on the state number anyway, as Bloomington would have the right to do as well. Um, but I'd need to understand how they defined low frequency. Uh, and the reason the Illinois Pollution Control Board standards are so difficult to um, uh, measure is you need instrumentation that can isolate each one of those bands. And there is a varied number for the decibel levels within each of those bands um that decreases when sound is more objectionable or noticeable from human beings. Um so that that what I I really would need to compare what the state has to what bloom.

Do you have any idea how long you would need to do that? How much time? Uh I don't think that would take long. I just unfortunately found that out as I was driving back today. Okay. All right. because one the message that I'm hearing from the residents over there by Cyrus one is uh they do need help but one of the more important things that they're mentioning know what I'm hearing from them is don't let it happen to anybody else either understand staff hears that loud and clear all right any other questions I know we have a little bit more to get through and a few more sound sound related slides correct right John if you'd advance again a slide

so uh again using the that same kind of methodology for the freight train. What was recommended at committee of the whole was a 5949 daytime nighttime standard for decibb. I had indicated at uh uh committee of the whole as I was I was uh sure that I would be less than 40 uh in the daytime. the the math ends up being for the daytime decibb at 1,000 ft is 39 dB at 1500 feet is 35.5 um and during the nighttime as I indicated it would be substantially lower than 40 uh that 49 dB during the nighttime would end up being 29 at 1,000 ft and 25 1/2 at 1500 ft. And again, there's a little table down there that uh attempts to try and give you a a feel for what um common sounds might sound like at that decibel level. Again, important to emphasize though, this is constant noise, unlike all of those uh categories that that I show there. It's just for reference so that you can kind of picture what the sound would end up being as far as intensity. So, that was the staff recommendation at committee of the whole. We've done a little bit more studies and I wanted to offer based on what was the discussion that was happening at committee the whole we wanted to show you what a two decibel decrease would be from this recommendation and John if you would advance to the next slide again. So two decb would end up uh uh if council uh wanted to uh drop it by two dB, we would end up with 57 and 47 night uh daytime and nighttime. And the resulting um sound 1,000 ft away or 1500 feet away during the day would then be 37 or 33 and a half at 1500 and at night would be 27 or 23 and a half at 1500.

Uh so I wanted to show what uh it sounded like council was leaning towards a decrease and what that decrease might look like. Um also have done uh the in between one uh one decibel step as an example and you end up right in the middle of the two. We're farif at 1,00 and500 ft we're approaching the part of that curve where it ends up becoming closer to linear. Uh so uh it would be the decibel level right in between the two essentially the the previous slide and this slide if it was a one decel reduction.

Uh so that that was the other the last item I thought that we were deliberating on. Uh and um I ready I'm ready for any questions there. I guess um yep we can go with question alderwoman bade. Yeah. So can you get your microphone? Yeah, the sound is with the wind or just plain sound.

Yeah. So, uh the uh again the testing there I'm sorry the modeling the way the modeling works is they're assuming wind from every direction when they do modeling. I'm not in the background of all these computers. I've got scientists who do this for a living telling me that's the way that the modeling is built. Uh so it's it what they're telling us is the uh assumptions in the background of the model is creating the worst case scenario and then when we do the testing we would have the ability to do the testing under under whatever circumstances that we um determined they should be done under um and and that we're not specifying uh anything specific. If they're in violation, they'd be in violation.

And the tools used were professional tools. Um, as uh you might recall last uh last meeting, one of the changes that is in the current staff recommendation before you is to uh have staff engage a uh professional to do the testing and then get reimbursed from the developer. That was a change that was made between uh RAP and committee of the whole. uh and uh we I anticipate we would end up having to do an RFP for this kind of services and then have a list of people that we would have to find out if they're available. The the request would end up kind of being quick on on or at least the the developer would want it to be quick, let's say, uh when they when we ultimately need the test. So, I'm thinking we're going to end up having to do an RFP for these services and then engage the uh design professional who who uh can do the study when we need it.

Okay. And the study um Mr. Mayor, can I go into the uh amendments that I had sent and then questions? I had questions.

A few other questions if that's okay from Let's just see if anybody else has any questions. And real quick on the on the engineered sound study per the ordinance as if it goes through today they would have to test they would have to demonstrate an sound engineering test that we picked the person who was doing the study data center would pay for it. It would happen before construction begins and it would happen after construction begins. Um the the the testing is right that we would end up doing modeling testing before construction begins. So the modeling would actually be the consultants that are engaged by the uh data the data center or the developer. But before we issue any certificate of occupancy, we would be we would be engaging someone to do the testing, someone we hire and then get reimbured for. So we would control that consultant at the tail end. So, it would truly behoove the developer data center to make sure they got it all right on the front end uh and make sure that their um consultants were conservative enough that they would end up passing a test being uh performed by another consultant before the facility was able to be opened.

Any other questions on sound? Alderman Larson.

Thank you. Uh I have two things. Uh first question um regarding sound testing. So that the city will choose the person who does the sound testing or the uh the company that does the sound testing. Um would that happen uh on the city's timeline or would the data center be notified uh prior to that? Because I know there's concerns that um if a data center knows they're being tested, they might have quieter sound at that time. understand the comment and the concern, but you have to realize that without the certificate of occupancy that we control, they can't open the center. Therefore, I get to dictate the city gets to dictate when the testing is occurring that and that it occurs uh in a manner that's acceptable to the city before we would issue the certificate of occupancy. So, yes, we have to work with the data center. They need to turn all their equipment on in other in order for it to be an actual real test. And then the the other caveat I did add, it ties into some of the comments again tonight. These uh data centers may ramp up over time and they may not be paying and installing for all of their equipment when the first certificate of occupancy is issued. That's why I felt it really important that we amend the building code and insist that we do that testing, that same testing again, every time that there's noise producing equipment added to the project. If another data hall gets developed, we're back at it again before that data hall opens.

Okay. And uh one more thing uh regarding the uh the noise levels um I saw you had in your charts uh uh regarding how loud sounds are at uh different decibel levels. Um and I I was doing some research on how like the human ear perceives uh sound at different decibel levels. I I saw the same thing. Uh however, one other thing that I found is that um obviously the way that people uh perceive noise is subjective, but uh people generally don't notice a difference uh unless there's at least a three decel uh change. So I would I would say if we are going to lower the the sound level, it should be at least three dB if not more um rather than two. But that's that's just a comment based on um the two decel reduction. I think it should be a bit more.

Any other questions on sound? Quick sound question. Alman Franco was first then I'll go to you. So you're entertaining reducing the decibel level by one, two, or three, whatever the case may be. Can they do it? I mean, we're talking about them reducing it, which was wonderful because when you talk about getting down to 35 and 25, but is that reality? Can they do have we talked to them? make sure like oh yeah alderman or city ro we can do it or we can't do it doesn't even matter do we know that yes uh we we actually have had some discussions with data centers it is possible I would suggest that they felt it was quite challenging but still possible

okay and then how do you feel about I mentioned this before if they don't comply I I just think this thousand a day is ridiculously low do you feel because you've dealt with this before do you feel that maybe because of the amount of money they make it's all relative $10,000 a day would be appropriate because once you say you can do something and you don't do it, that's on you. So, you know what I'm saying? So, I I would like to get the comments because I think that's ridiculously low because, you know, we all know that if you're going to find me low, I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing, I make more money. You find me high, I got I change what I do. So, I'm just wondering how you feel about that.

Well, um, as someone who manages enforcement staff, I like fines that would, um, encourage compliance faster. Uh I've had this discussion with corporation councils going back to my u first of my 27 years here and I've consistently got the same answer that there is uh uh statutory law or stat statutes and law case law that um uh would that we need to be very careful to dance around with respect to fines that they have some relation to the actual um violation that's occurring uh and um what it's taking to accomplish their compliance. Completely understand your question. Understand that it may not mean enough to this particular use type. Um, I've asked the question myself and I will say I've consistently gotten the same answer from every corporation council that I've worked with.

I was going to give a very similar answer.

I was going to give a very similar answer. The the the thing with the fines. So, so $1,000 for each violation each day is consistent with with fines imposed throughout the city for for violations. Um, I will say that the um state statute allows our as a home municipality um we're not limited to the $750 a day that non-homeroll um are. Um but our hearing officers are only allowed to find um a total of $50,000. Um that's that's their cap. So So there is there is significant limits on what we can do. So what I what I like about the $1,000 is that how a violation is defined is is really left to the discretion of U. Mr. Curley's office um you know as as code enforcement. So, if they're running, you know, if they're violating the two generators a day and they're running, you know, if they're running four generators, well, those two extra generators are each a violation. Um, if they're, you know, to the extent that they're um I'm just trying to think of other violations as I'm sitting here, right? So, so for each, you know, level that they're, you know, above with their their power usage or or their water usage, you know, we can we can incrementally um, you know, determine violations. It gives him a lot of discretion and legal a lot discretion when working with um non-compliance because frankly we understand that $50,000 is you know which is the cap the hearing officer can provide is perhaps the cost of doing business and I I get that but we also want to be able to you know to you know really the goal in code enforcement is really compliance and we want to be able to have you know some flexibility in

making sure that we can, you know, we we have a, you know, we have leverage so that we can we can force them into compliance and we can, you know, negotiate in good faith with them. So, um, I don't, you know, a a small increase in the the fine probably. Okay. But I I also I'm very aware that there's a there's a there's a cap under the um powers of a hearing officer on what they can actually impose. If there was a if there was a I'll just ask the question. If we were not getting compliance as we have in other places, we could increase the fine. There would be justification for that. We' still run into the same problem.

You run into the same problem with the um with the hearing off of what the hearing officers can do. But if we're, you know, we can always go to circuit court that that allows us to increase the fines because that's not the hearing officer. That's the that's a circuit court. That's not like the judge. So they can impose more fines. there's other remedies we can pursue, but um I do want to I just you know want to make the council aware that you know if we you know set a set a fine that you know of $100,000 a day or something that's not that's not going to be realistic as we move

so just like nuisance abatement. So we have property standards and when somebody's not complying and habitually not complying we increase those fines based on their non-compliance history. I wonder if we could do that here. Like we just got a bad egg and they just keep violating and violating. We're $1,000 a day or or you keep violating now it's $2,000. Now it's $5,000 because you have a history of not obeying what you're supposed to. I'm just I'm I'm not saying we're going to do that now, but I would think that would be better to do because, you know, somebody makes a mistake, here's your fine. Somebody has a pattern of it, you know, that's no longer a mistake. And I just think we they should not be rewarded. They should be punished commeniously based on what they're doing or not doing. um without getting into the you know all details of how these I mean because we have we obviously have a robust administrative system and and hearing um code enforcement system that involves both circuit court and our our hearing officers and administr um administrative hearing process. Um I mean generally there is a there is a difference between your you know your your good faith you know you know like hey my garage burned down I just need more time to get money and rebuild it. There's a there's a there's a difference between how we treat that and how we treat someone who you know a contractor who knows better and should really be in compliance. We get constant issues with them. That's that's definitely true. um and and how we you know how we work with them and how we handle those cases um you know depends on our our history or knowledge of the of the offender and the um property. Um you know to the extent that we um I wouldn't say that we like double the fines or something like that. I wouldn't you know I wouldn't say that but we do we do take into consideration the circumstances of the individual homeowner or property owner. Okay. So, for the rest of this, why don't we shift back to sound and keep it on sound till

we reach that resolution? Alderwoman Smith. Next. So, um Mr. Curley, could you clarify something for me? If in this ordinance we put 57 and 47, what does that mean for pre-existing facilities, pre-existing data centers? Do they have to reach the 5747 or do they still abide by the state um regulations because that's what they came in under? Uh it's the latter. Uh Alderwoman Smith, they are not going to be regulated by these new ordinances.

Okay. I think it's important for our guests to understand that. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Any other questions on sound? Yes. Um, older woman Bade. Yes. I have a question about sound the enforcement part. After office hours and during weekend, will we have additional officers and where can the residents uh call if they experience distress because of sound? And the other thing is call you. Um maybe I'll finish this uh question.

You call me and I call John. Um currently are we able to enforce it because if it's out of state law if somebody is not abiding by the state law currently are we able to abide I mean um enforce it I guess I I I guess I'm a little confused. So So you're saying that there's a state law. Do we enforce state law? Yes. our police department in and the King County or DuPage County Kendall or Will County States Attorney's Office enforces the state law that so currently if uh

but there's there are a lot of discretionary decisions made on each level of government. So if we reduce the residents call the alderman and alderman calls the mayor and mayor or they can call or they can call 311. People can file a complaint anytime. Yep. Or or use that. But for the most part they're going to they're pro I suppose if they wanted to call the police they could but the police aren't going to have a sound meter. and if it's enforcing maybe you could talk a little bit about how the state law is enforced currently for um the existing data centers and those that got in before the moratorum.

Yeah. So there's a a complaint and a violation process that's laid out in the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Uh they handle a lot a lot of different types of environmental pollution. Noise being one of them. So they take complaints and then would hold hearings after doing some evaluation is the way that their process works and we make reference to that standard in our ordinances in our zoning ordinance and that will be the same process when we have this ordinance. Uh that same process will be capable of being used when we have this process. Yes, we would be a lot I would assume we would be a lot faster than the state process of enforcement.

Yeah. So this this adds a local enforcement So right now we don't have a local enforcement. This ordinance adds a local enforcement, a municipal enforcement. Okay. Thank you. For new data centers going forward.

Yes. Any other questions on sound? I guess we need to talk about a number. Um so we might as well start that discussion. I know there's you've you've proposed 57 bringing it down. Uh um I know that uh Alderwoman Bay prepared a number of 49. I know Alderman Larson suggested three points below 59. So um and do you want to give us any thoughts on where we should be? Should we continue to edge edge down?

Well um the again we we didn't get um responses from the data centers that that our proposal at at 5949 was impossible. we didn't get uh push back that 5747 was impossible. Um I um I'm I'm not certain if we go substantially below that, but um a three decel reduction I I would believe still is achievable. Um and it might go a little further than that. The curve, again, that curve starts acting more linear the further you get away. So, if we're at 1500 ft, uh you can you you could uh see how the um well, between the two slides, you can see that it's basically a one decel difference at 1500 ft. Uh which correlates with the difference at the property line. Uh just happens to be because that it's that's the ratio when you're that far away from the from the actual um noise producing element. So, um the uh a 40, let's see here. Uh so, a 40 a 56 and a 46 would end up with uh pretty close to being uh if you look in the lower left of that slide, you reduce one decibel on each side of that. And uh those decibb at the at the residential lot lines um are um approaching quiet rural very quiet uh standards according to that chart on the right. Alderman Bug try 56 57

57 56 three so assuming I mean we have to be on the right legar number uh decimal levels is on 26-11 right two next item

so I I move to amend the exhibit A staff recommended language revise page 8 line 20 to 23 to read daytime hours 56 dB weighted 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and nighttime hours 46 waited 700 p.m. to 7 a.m. So there's a motion to amend to 56 and 46. Is there a second? Second. Second by Alderman Larson. discussion. Also, yes. Uh, so you're saying it's doable?

Yes, I believe it's doable. And does that how does that affect anything you said you were going to look into earlier? Um, the Can you use your microphone? I'm sorry, I didn't hear it. What What What is it that How would it affect anything you said you need to look into earlier?

Um, discussion. The question you asked me was about Bloomington's regulations and what I'd be compar comparing would be how they define low frequency and how it correlates to the low frequency band that's already in place. Low frequency um sound band octave band uh it sounded like I said ban I think but ba the the band the octave band and figure out uh if there's a correlation between what the state is requiring and what Bloomington is requiring. That's what I'd look into.

And what about any thought if any u in regards to this graduated scale they have here? Limits on property lines 25 ft etc. 50 ft. Yeah, there's uh Oops. So, I'm looking at I believe I'm looking at probably the same email that you got. Yeah, every everyone was copied on this. Um the uh again that that is highlighting the low frequency mechanical noise. I I'd make that comparison to what the state does uh and also compare what happens to that noise at those distances. Um but the um I I would presume that Bloomington used something similar to what I've shown you to determine that at the property line it's 50 and it drops off in the in the following manner. I I would presume that whoever's adopting this ordinance would not make the 50 feet away from the site um a 45 decel uh uh limit at the property line because they'd be uncongruous with one another.

Okay. So maybe we it doesn't matter at this point if we're looking at some graduated scale because these are pretty close, right? The increments lot line 25 ft and 50 ft. Yeah. Yeah. And it uh if you look at some of the charts that I've got there, uh I'm looking at the 5747 chart. At at 100 ft, it drops off 7 dB. At 200 ft, it drops off 10 dB. So, it does again that the front end of that curve from that graph that I showed you, the decibel levels do drop off quickly. Um uh the closer you are to the source of the noise.

Okay. All right. So, up or down? It's not probably going to make a difference at this point regards to the amendment. Uh, and I again, we're going to be ensuring that there's compliance with both our standard and the state standards as well. So, all right. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, real quick, real quick before we go into this, I'm going to ask the clerk to please read 260112. We're going to discuss 260112 because that was the one that was just amended. Um, and if we're ready to move forward with uh votes on this and then and then we'll go back into

the amendment. We are voting on the amendment.

So So Alderman Bug made a motion to amend because we were discussing the sound stuff. So Alderman Bug made a motion to amend 26112. And so um because we we had only read into the record previously 260092. So, we're going to deal with with the 260112 now and then we'll return to the 92. Okay. All right. 260112, an ordinance amending chapter 49 of the code of ordinances by modifying section 49-103.3 definitions and 49-104.3 conditional uses and structures with regards to data center facilities. So there's been this is the agenda item that we'll be uh tackling first or second under unfinished business, but a motion was made by Alderman Bug to move to 5646. Are there any other questions on the on the amendment? Alerwoman Babe,

mayor, I just want to ask is that the lowest possible we can go with right now? My recommendation was 49 and 39. Is that the lowest possible that we can present for future? I'll let I'll let Mr. Curley answer that question.

Um I I'm uncomfortable answering the same question I've been asked on that level of a change to say that it's accomplishable based on the feedback that we've gotten. I have to admit I haven't asked that answer. I haven't asked that question directly to any of the data centers. Um but it's enough of a change that I'd be uncomfortable acknowledging that they can achieve it. So your question was what is the lowest that's achievable? I don't know that there we we have a data center um expert and as you know there's a lot of variables with sound like wind that are outside of the control of um of of the testing equipment at the time when we approve that permit the occupancy permit. So,

any other questions on the amendment? Mr. Mayor, this is Alder Mike. Alman Seville, glad to see you're still with us. I am. Thank you. I apologize for my voice. My question is we're voting on the amendment that Alderman Edug uh is uh is proceeding with and that's for 26. That's 0112. That's correct. Don't we need to bring bring that to the floor first before we can amend anything? I don't know if you you heard, but we did ask um the clerk to read it into the record to bring agenda 6112 to the floor. Okay, great. Great. I check you.

Do you have any questions on the amendment as presented? No, I think it's a good idea to lower the rates. Okay. Soon as the clerk returns, if there's no further questions on the amendment, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes.

12, yes. Zero, no. This amendment to agenda item 260112 to change the uh noise levels to 56 and 46 is adopted. Um are there any other questions or amendments for 260112? I don't know when's the right time to read all the amendments that I had sent earlier. No, I already said well I guess start.

Okay. Thank you. Uh as it was mentioned by the mayor at the committee of the whole meeting, I sent the amendments to the staff and uh these were based on the issues raised raised by the residents of Aurora and the feedback received from public comments and there are five proposed amendments that I had sent on Friday. Um these are all related to data center ordinance that we are considering currently. Uh these amendments reflect concern expressed by community members regarding the potential impact of large scale or any other data center development in our neighborhoods, residential, educational as well as healthcare facilities. The proposed changes are intended to strengthen protection related to setback distances, noise and vibration mitigation. utility, infrastructure demands, and overall compatibility with the surroundings. And these were the amendments that I had uh sent.

So why don't we do it one at a time and let's let corporate council determine which one it should go into and let's address only the ones what that go into112.

Okay. So the first one was enhanced separation and setback requirement. The minimum setback for any data center structure including but not limited to cooling towers, chillers and backup generators shall be increased from proposed 1,00 to 1,500 to no less than.5 miles from any boundary of residential educational healthcare zoning district. This buffer is necessary to mitigate the unique mechanical resonance and infrastructure load of large scale facilities. And the reason why I had sent this was because of the noise that is coming out of uh current data center, vibration that is coming out of uh current data center and also uh there are other uh factors like um residents experiencing cracks in the homes. Um so that is why the maximum distance possible to be between any of the future data centers and any of these three facilities.

So that is for this agenda item and I'll let corporate council

Okay. Yep. So um for for 26 um 1112 um if you turn to page six line 8 and line 20 I highlighted this language so it' be easy to locate. So, um, Alderman Bade, um, I believe that what you are proposing is to amend, um, line 8 to state, um, 2,640 ft and line 20 to also state 200 2,640 ft. Is that accurate?

Yes. Is there a second on this motion? Second second by alderman white discussion. Yes. U repeat question. I'm sorry. So now we do half a mile. Do you know off the top of your head we said there's four or five viable lots available. If we do this how many are available afterward? when we do half a mile.

If we do a half a mile, there are none available in M2 districts, which is another thing you need to consider based on the recommendations in front of you. Which which district there would be um in the M1 district, there would be a small sliver that does not represent anything like a an actual lot left over um in the northwest portion of Meridian on the east side. John, can you go to the Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay. So, for M1, the there's there's an arrow on the far right of this map, the current language you're considering, uh the Neapville residential would wipe out the ability to do anything in that small sliver on the far right. That is, as as corporation council mentioned, that is something that could be amended. But if you look what's available there, I don't know that it would really achieve anything. um that that's not really uh much that's left for development. The uh sliver that's shaped kind of like an hourglass uh to immediately that's highlighted with an arrow immediately to the west of that is the area that would be left in the M1 with a half mile buffer. So again, I don't think there's really a developable site in there. The lot lines are not going to respect those curves. So you'd be assembling multiple lots and only be able being able to use portions of the lot those lots. So I don't believe there's really anything developable in the M1 district either. Uh so moving on to the OI district. I think it's a prior uh there we go. Great. Thanks John. Um, as corporation council mentioned on this slide, the uh eastern arrow in the middle of this slide uh is pointing to a portion of the Liberty um uh Liberty Business Park uh to the east of Mitchell Road, but if you're familiar with that area, the entire entirety of Mitchell Road on the north on the north Aurora side with the exception of a warehouse that's basically right at corporate as you cross the toll way. It's all residential. So that residential, the way this is written now, would wipe out that entire available, so to speak, um, uh, ability to develop within ORI, and we'd be left with, uh, the balance of the stuff that's over on the west side by Orchard Road. I do think some other

North Aurora residential might eat into that uh, northern northwestern part of that leftover a little bit. Uh but it's again important to mention that there are no sites within what's shown to be available that are open for development right now. They're all currently developed sites. And so now with this motion to where we amended the the decibel levels, would that improve obviously? I mean, just I I think I I know the answer, but can you just for the record just tell us that the buffer buffer that that you had in place, the 1,500 and the 1,00 um it just makes it stronger

in terms of

Yes, the the reduction in the decibel levels would improve the decibel level realiz the actual decibel level realized by our constituents at their properties. uh that that was just uh uh proposed to be amended that you'll be voting on in a minute. Um the um what what we're balancing here is distance is a solution to sound. There's no question about it. But we're also balancing what we can do legally to create a separation distance and not create some exclusionary zoning and balancing that with the amount of sound that's coming off the site in the first place. Uh that's why I created the tables I did for you to try and demonstrate what the uh decibel levels that are actually realized by our residents would be with the separation distance that we proposed. Okay. Uh I think if you look way on the let me look here. If uh if you look at what I proposed for 5747 the sound realized at the residential lot with about um a half mile separation distance in the daytime with 57 as the decibel level. The resulting sound would be 28 dB or almost almost 29 dB. And with a half mile separation with the 47 at nighttime, the dB at that residential lot line would be almost 19 dB.

Okay. So clearly distance is part of a solution to improve sound. But we've got to balance that distance with the um uh what we can do and try and not create exclusionary zoning at the same time. That's why staff was always has always been recommending a balance between including both parameters and trying to strike the balance with both the separation distance that we can achieve and a uh decibel level that makes that makes it's achievable and helps the uh experience for the neighbors.

All right. So this is where I'm going with this question because you have a provision here for flexibility in one of these documents in in creating this agreement going towards working making an agreement.

Correct. Uh, yes. I think you're referring to um the requirement for a de development agreement running alongside the zoning entitlement case that would show up to council coincidentally and that there could be agreements with the develop developer or data center um that uh could be made with them as as you're all um deliberating the zoning entitlement. I I'll use your the term here feasibility alternative compliance on page 12 uh is part of this document. That's what I'm referring to. So, okay. Um with that with that said, you just give me a second. I'm going to clarify exactly what I'm what I'm trying to Okay.

question ask with this feasibility alternative compliance. If we increase the buffer to 2,640 ft for ground mounted or even rooftop mounted chillers, if they were able if a a petitioner was able to pro provide information that there will not be in their modeling that we request any challenges um that far and maybe not even or up to,500,000 ft sight. Could that be adjusted? Yeah. And a conditional use request.

Well, let me first let me first touch on the term uh feasibility or feasibility alternative compliance. That's actually not in 112. Um that's actually in 92 and chapter 51. It's in 112, but it's just

okay. So, so that that the that section touches on the renewable and resilience. So that's the on-site alternative energy uh uh creation on site or the resiliency with uh battery power. Um so that's that's addressing that specific those specific items. That being said, the premise of your question is entirely correct and you would be able to deliberate. It's a really important part of what a conditional use u deliberation for an actual data center might look like next time you see one if we see one again. Um, if the developer uh can assure everyone to not my level of comfort but to your level of comfort that they can produce they can produce a data center that has a certain decibel level at uh the property lines and everyone's convinced that that's okay and we we would we might end up relaxing some of the standards. I don't see that happening, but the premise of your question is it is possible to come to an agreement um if there were some impediments that are very specific to a particular parcel that might run contrary to what our ordinance dictates right now. But certainly everyone would have to be very comfortable that the intent and the actual experience of all of our constituents is being um kind of at the at the forefront of the decision-m process. So, it it is possible that you would add something there. Um, I would suggest unlikely to to modify both the separation distance and the and the decibel level based on the deliberation we've had and the experience that our constituents have had, but it is possible.

Thank you. Does that answer your question, Almanacos? Yes and no. I mean the reality is uh we don't have an expert here to help provide more information uh expert being a uh sound engineer acoustic engineer uh that could help provide us more delineation to that to that subject matter bug. Thank you Mr. Curley. Alman, thank you. Mr. Krill, you're our staff expert on this topic. I believe I am the staff expert a lot of times.

Thank you. If we enact this amendment, would you consider this exclusionary zoning? The staff amendment? No, I don't think it's exclusionary. And that's at the advice of our our legal experts as well. This amendment. The amendment. No, this amendment. The half mile. Um, the half mile. That's the amendment. I'm sorry. I thought we were deliberating. So, uh, no, the half mile given the the slivers that will be left for them to try and create a data center in the slivers oblong shapes. Mhm. Would this be considered exclusionary zoning? In your

In my expert opinion, in my opinion, it would be. Thank you. you corporate council want to weigh in? I I don't disagree with Mr. Curly. Any other questions? Alderman Barrow.

Yeah, Mayor Lash. Thank you. Uh Mr. Curley, I have a a question and this is um um addressing uh Alderman Bad's u concern about vibration and and requesting the increasing the distance because of the vibration. But um you've thrown a lot of information at us. I've been trying to keep up with all the information, but I thought um that during some of the presentations there was something um um being required from data centers to help mitigate vibrations when they're constructing uh the facilities. Can you speak to that? Yes.

Yes, that's correct. Um the u the typical uh diesel generators that are being used in this industry right now come with uh optional um uh accessories. One of them is isolation mounts to help uh minimize the amount of vibration that's transmitted to grade. And we currently have nothing that speaks of this. Uh so we're adding provisions that require those uh isolation um uh u options to be chosen when they're uh specified. We would be analyzing the specifications for those uh generators to ensure that they are in fact part of the package. And then uh again we're uh we have the uh we we in are insisting on testing being occurred or occurring prior to any um occupancy being granted. So along the same lines as the testing that I described uh for Alderman Larson about the sound, we would also be doing uh vibration testing, alongside that sound testing to ensure that they're complying with what we found is the region regionally the most strict standards for vibration

and those would be achievable. Yes. Um, again, we're we're using the most strict um vibration standards from the uh from the region and um the closest community in the the long list of ones I gave you is actually West Chicago, but yes, that those can be achieved. There are things that they can do the with the diesel generators to help minimize the vibration. Okay. Thank you,

Alderman Nunes. Mr. Curly, just one question regarding uh your graph, your linear graph, and comparing the 1500 to uh 2600. So, if I'm following your graph correctly, uh at the 56, whether it's 1500 or 2600 ft, we're still around that quiet rural area. Is that correct? at 56. Um, I believe your the numbers would end up being at the residential lot line 1500 ft away. We would end up being at about 32 1/2 in the day and about uh 22 1/2 at night.

And that puts us down to the whisper rustling leaves, right? It's in between a light rain or a whisper and quiet rural area during the day. and at night you're um a quiet rural area. So at some point you also have to realize this is not the only thing producing sound in the area. Uh at some point you've got the noise being produced off of this site that might might blend into everything else that's happening. But this is the noise coming off of this site that I'm analyzing. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was following the graph correctly. So thank you for clarifying. Any other questions or discussions? Uh alderman Messi

since we've been through one round I'm going to go back to the power act power act comparison chart uh s citing and location uh no data centers okay this is proposed uh by state of Illinois no data centers allowed within three miles of equity investment eligible community within city of Chicago within three miles of environmental justice neighborhood as defined by Chicago unless community assessment demonstrates that the project does not pose a disproportionate risk to health welfare or environment of those communities. We're proposing something more stringent right now with 1500 ft. Correct. Here it says rooftop chillers cannot be loc. What's what's in the ordinance? 1500 ft and 1,000 ft. Correct. So

we're already more stringent than the state of Illinois. Right. By far. Correct. Okay. All right. Any other questions? Hearing none. U we're we'll be voting on just the amendment. The amendment for clarity is to extend it uh from 1,500 feet to a half mile uh distance which uh staff has said would be exclusionary or considered exclusionary. Um so I'll ask the clerk to please call the role on just the amendment at this time. Barrero, no. Garza, yes. Makos, pass. Nunes, no.

Franco, no. Seville, no. Benueos, yes. Smith, no. Bug, no. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, no. Messiacos, yes. Five yes, seven no. Okay, this motion fails. Uh, alderwoman Bad's amendment fails. Uh do you have a followup? You mentioned a couple others. Let's see read the second amendment and see if it applies to this uh agenda item 260112.

Uh the second amendment is M2 zoning class reclassification. Due to high intensity utility demands, heavy equipment usage and noise profiles of these facilities, data centers should be classified as conditional use in M2 zones. This change ensures that every application underos a sightspecific public hearing to evaluate its impact on adjacent non-industrial properties. So the generators, transformers and chiller fans all of these equipments are like heavy um machinery. So a normal office would not be using so many of these machinery for office purposes. That is the reason uh I wanted to make this amendment and I I I'm sorry I'm not sure if uh I

I heard the rationale behind it. I didn't hear the motion. Yeah. So So the the Sorry, should I read?

No, I think I can help clarify it. So um this goes to 26 um 1112. Again, if you turn to page 14, I didn't highlight it because frankly there's a lot of colors already on page 14. Um, so so it's the table. Um, it says, um, 335 data center facility and, um, the different districts within the city are listed across the top and the, um, the C's stand for conditional use. Currently staff recommendation is that these are in Ori, M1 and M2 and then the additional regulations are of course the rest of this um ordinance exhibit A.

So first of all is everybody is everybody on the right page. It's page 14 of um exhibit A of 26 112. Okay. Okay. And then if you could clarify what it is you're trying to amend the the amendment itself. We'll see if we have a second and then discussion. Um I'm trying to amend the zoning from ORI to M2.

So you want to exclude ORI or you want to include ORI? So uh for data centers any future data centers actually the original proposal was to make it M1 and M2 uh just because of the equipment heavy equipment they are using they're not like normal offices would be using. So my amendment is um zoning reclassification motion to amend zoning to be required uh to be M1 M2 for data centers and exclude ORI. ORI. Yes.

Okay. So does everybody understand the amendment is to only allow data centers in M1 and M2 uh and exclude ORI? Did I get that correctly? Is there a second? Okay. Uh there's no second. There'll be no discussion. What's your next amendment? Uh can this be just M1? Pardon?

If we can revisit and just do M1 if not M2 just M1. So you want to you want to limit data centers to just M1 zoning

because M2 failed. So I want to propose all the data centers have M1 zoning. So ORI also have a capability of requesting for zoning change. So um we are not restricting the businesses from creating data centers. ORI can also apply if they qualify. They can uh do they can create a data center with M1 M1 resoning. I'm just trying to clarify your motion is to So you already mo made a motion to only allow data centers in M1 and M2.

Yes. I want to make it to M1. Now you want to limit it even further to just M1. Is that correct? So the minimum zoning should be M1. M2s can create data centers but not just I I I guess I'm a I'm a little confused. I'm confused. So if it was ORI, they had to change to M2 with the previous amendment. Now they can change to they change they they can make a request to change to M1 but they have to comply with all the M1 rules.

I still me doesn't that doesn't quite make sense. So so I I guess and and maybe I misdirected. So on page 14 of 26112 the conditional use table there is a C which stands for conditional use under ORI M1 and M2 do you see that can you see the line number again page 14 line seven it's it's lines six and seven the table doesn't it's also on the screen uh right now in the right one no

12 112 not that 14 cc conditions So um yeah, I got it. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. So, so I guess um it would to the extent that you're amending this, my understanding of your first amendment and I believe the mayor's understanding and the council's understanding was that you wish to remove the C from Ori. Is that accurate? Okay, that's accurate. Okay. So now what is the amendment to the language?

So the original amendment that I had read was just M2. So we include M1 and M2 and see if there are more vacant possibilities of having data center and it doesn't become exclusionary. So just eliminate ORI but M1 and M2 both are included. We just we just had that motion but there was no second on it. Yeah. So now are you proposing only M1 which is even more exclusionary? I don't No. No. Because uh the the first amendment that I had sent was actually just M2. No, you said M1 and M2.

Yeah, I mentioned that in my statement. But did we vote for M1 M2 or we voted just for M2? We voted against M1 M1 and M2 together. There was no second which means no other alder people agree with you that we should limit it and exclude ORI. Okay, that that's what the council said already. Uh because there was no second. Okay, I'm going to go to the third one now. Okay. Uh it's 902.

Mandatory human health impact analysis. Prior to the issuance of special use permit or conditional use or building permit, the applicant shall fund an independent human health impact assessment. This study must be conducted by qualified third-party medical or environmental health professional and must specifically evaluate the potential for chronic sleep disturbance and cortisol level impact from constant low frequency noise. the cumulative effect of electromag magnetic field exposure on nearby residents and respiratory impacts from the periodic testing of highcapacity diesel backup generators.

Okay, does everybody understand the amendment and uh is there is there a second? Uh can I give the rationale behind this? Just one line. She didn't understand. So, this is just for clarity. There's there's no language in the uh ordinance already. What you're asking for is for to include a health study. I'll let you go ahead and ex explain the rationale and thought process behind it.

Yes. Uh the rationale was a lot of residents who are unable to sleep because of the noise from the current data center. Um the water that is discarded uh the noise and vibration and also uh there were some um some speakers who came to planning and zoning as well as other meeting. They expressed the health concerns and there is no test being done on uh whatever is being emitted in the air. Uh how is it impacting the residential area? Since we are not increasing the distance, at least we should take care that it's not adversely impacting the residents of our city in the long run. Their health is not impacted.

Do we want to hear the motion one more time? Just I'll let you read the motion one more time. We'll see if there's a second. So basically the motion was to include health impact. So mandatory human health impact assessment. These the studies can be modified but I would love them to include chronic sleep disturbance, cortisol level impact from constant low frequency noise, the cumulative effect of electromagnetic fields exposure on nearby residents and respiratory impacts from the periodic testing of highcapacity diesel backup generators.

Okay, does everybody understand a motion and is there a second? I know. I'll second it. And I have a question about uh So, there's been a motion and a second by alderman motion made by Alderwoman Bade, second by Alderman Larson. And I'll ask Alderman Larson to ask a question.

Uh thank you. Yeah. Um I guess one clarification about this. Uh would this be how how would the frequency of the testing work? because I don't know if like annual testing like the other uh other types like noise testing um I don't I don't think it would really change yearbyear uh unless you know they add a bunch of diesel generators or something. Um so what what would the testing look like um with frequency and would would it be required for every data center or would it be every every few years? Um

uh the testing as you mentioned it cannot be just one day or um um just a short period of time. It should be long-term impact. So we continue to study if there is so much emission of diesel um in the air what how is it adversely affecting. So there should be a study included with our ordinance that it is not adversely impacting and if it is there should be rules and the data center or the business should be um compensating or correcting them actually correcting them or compensating.

Okay. Yeah, I I agree with the with the idea that I think there definitely should be health testing. Um I I guess I'm just curious to see what the language would actually look like in the ordinance. Um yeah.

And are you asking uh to do it before during the application process to do a study or you're asking it for a period because long-term health impacts of diesel generators is something that would probably be tested over a significant period of time. So you're looking at post construction. So the testing cannot be done before it is constructed but it can be added to the ordinance that this will be happening and say over 2 years you're not complying these are the rules you have to follow fix the machine fix the equipment otherwise there will be fines so include the health study question alman nunes then alman Franco

I would agree that the health of our constituents should be a top priority I guess I'm a little confused as to how do differ from a data center creating pollutants to vehicles orchard 88. How is that how is that measured? The equipment will be close to their uh facilities but but the health impacts would be on the residents.

So we monitor how much whatever is being whatever pollutants are being emitted in the air at the property. But obviously we are studying the neighborhood area too on our city's um city's based on the city's ordinance that it's not if anybody complains about it, we take a note of it and then process it that way. Does that make sense? I can I weigh in a little bit here? Okay. Uh maybe for example we can take fish in the pond.

If the pond near the data centers the fish are dying and some of the neighbors reported that um we should take a look at it. So something is happening at that particular location because of this business.

Okay. So so first of all I don't think human health and and fish are are apples to apples. But that being said, I'm I think I think that there's a difference between ongoing studies and a one-time before it opens zoning requirement. So what is in the zoning ordinance is are requirements that happen before zoning is granted. All right. So the what what the zoning ordinance put um legisar 26112 goes through are all the things that the zoning team that staff and then the plan commission and then you know eventually city council will look at in determining whether or not to grant a special use. Um, I think that to the extent that you're to the extent that you're proposing that there be a study specific to a site related to quarter zone level impacts from low frequency noise. I'm not sure how that would work before the data center was built. But that aside, I also um I also feel like these studies may be a little broader like there's probably health studies on the impacts of constant low frequency noise that I I don't know that we need a new study every time a new data center comes in. Um or electromagnetic field exposure. I don't know how you would how you would separate cell phone use from

from an environmental I I I don't I don't know enough about it. I Allison can probably comment on it but I but I I just want to clarify that there's a there's a difference between what we are doing with the zoning ordinance which happens before building and then chapter 50 and 51 that deal with what happens after it's built. Okay, Allison, real quick, then we'll go to Alman Franco and Alderman Bug.

Thank you. Um, Allison Lindberg, director of sustainability. Um, I just wanted to mention because I thought this might be pertinent. So, in our conversations with different municipalities, we talked to the city of Chicago because they actually took about a year to try to um study some of this. It wasn't all of it. I don't remember if it had the electromagnets. I don't remember if it was noise, but I know that they tried to do an impact study for the existing data centers that they had um related to emissions specifically, and they're still not done with it. It was supposed to be done at the end of uh last year. So, I just want to throw that out there because I think these types of studies while important are extremely lengthy and I don't know that you can do it for just one data center. the the monitoring over time, yes, but I don't know how you can I think it is very difficult to tie it directly to the health impacts. Again, I'm not saying it's not important, but I just wanted to throw that out there that I know of at least one place that's tried to study this and and they haven't finished it yet. It it's been taking a long time. Alderman Franco.

So if we if they adhere to all the rules and regulations we've put in place, wouldn't the IEPA be handling that? They're the ones who regulate that type of thing. I know that for a fact. So I don't know why we would be overlapping because they have rules and regulations already in place and they would monitor it and they would put out fines that they already have an ordinance and rules and regulations built for. I don't know that we would be doubling our efforts here and I don't know if if they adhere to the ordinance and something happened what are we going to do because they didn't do anything wrong. So I I think that's more the IEPA situation what you're talking about than these other things. I just don't know how we would integrate the two together people. Alman Bug,

uh I I agree with Alderman Franco and Alderman Nunes. Um but f firstly I I believe the amendment is overly broad. In other words um we started measuring things and we kept measuring and we kept me adding things on. So even in this amendment I'm not sure what we're looking at measuring. I think we need clarification on that. what what actual things. Um secondly and I I think Alderman Nia said it well if you are measuring just diesel the diesel generators how can we say we're going to measure that for data centers and not for every other company who has large diesel generators in the city who already exist. Um I I just I don't think legally down the road this would pass. Most

question. Any other discussion questions? So the the amendment uh if we're going to vote really quick on the amendment that's before you, I'll ask. Okay. Go ahead. I think that there needs to be some clarification about the language of the amendment. I don't think that the clerk has it all down and I think that the language needs to be as as Alderman Bug pointed out, it's not real clear what the the scope of this is. So to the extent that Alderman Bade, if you could read the language that you are proposing to add to 2612 like specifically and um

we can for the record we can also get that to the clerk. I know, but I think I I I think given that the discussion has gone, I think it's just important to get this language, what what the specific language is that's going to be added to the ordinance or what she's moving to add to the ordinance so everyone knows what they're voting on and the record is is complete on that. So the proposed amendment is test of testing of long-term health impact on the residents near the data center and the test may include all these test should include all these chronic sleep disturbance and cortisol level impacts from low constant low frequency noise. the commu commumulative uh effect of electromagnetic field exposure on nearby residents, respiratory impacts from the periodic testing of highcapacity diesel backup generators.

Okay, so the health long-term health impact study to be included with the ordinance. Okay, so there's a um motion and a second on the floor. Um, there's been discussion. I'll ask the clerk to please call the role on the Bade Health impact study amendment. Guerrero, pass. Gerza, yes. Makos, pass. Nunes, no. Franco, no. Seville, no. Vanuelos, no. Smith, no. Bug, no.

Bade, yes. Larson, no. White, no. Barrero, no. Nasiakos, no. 10, no. Okay, this amendment also fails. And do you have another one?

Yes. The next one is environmental hazard mitigation. Um the developer shall provide an environmental hazard management plan that includes air quality monitoring installed permanently um to calculate the realtime air quality sensors at the property line to monitor nitrogen oxide and particular matter that is emitted during generator testing. So environmental impact of generator testing in simple languages. Okay. And and also around the clock testing. Yes. Not not periodic or complaint based. Yes.

Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. A motion made by Alderwoman Bade, seconded by Alderman Larson. I'm going to first go to staff really quick. Um if if you your understanding of the amendment or do you have any questions on her amendment? She's basically saying we need some testing. Yeah. Adding adding um uh testing for uh contaminants and pollutants at the property line 247 uh like we've got for uh vibrations already in the ordinance. Okay.

Yes. Um, I guess that was going to be my question is if the constant monitoring needed to be in um 26-92 instead um instead of in uh 112. That was going to be my comment.

Okay. So, let's figure let's hear your last amendment. We'll potentially bring that one up. Uh I'll ask if if you'd like to withdraw the amendment to and we'll make that for 260092. We're currently still discussing 260112 because it's really something it's really something for because we're still discussing 26112 which is zoning and what you're proposing has to do with afterwards. So that would go in chapter 50 which is if you withdraw the motion now we can when we get to that agenda. I'll withdraw the motion now. Okay. Alman Larson, thank you.

If you don't mind, can I ask a clarifying? Um, your amendment, did it also have fire suppression something on it? I remembered that. I think that's the next one. That's the next one. Yeah. No, it included fire suppression. Okay. Because I think the fire suppression piece was probably in the beginning. So, that one might actually go in 112.

Uh, well, fire suppression is dealt with in the building codes. And unless there's something outside of what the all of the uh national standards or national standard building codes are for suppression, I'm not sure we need to address it um as certainly a zoning or in the other amendments. Is this is it have you gone to your final amendment orth that is why I didn't read it out as part of this amendment. Okay. Because it's already included. Okay. So So you're not doing the fire suppression. Okay. It is already included as right Mr. Curry mentioned. Do you have another Do you have additional amendments?

Yes. The last one here uh comprehens comprehensive noise regulations and uh we did go over this and we did uh reduce to 56 from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. uh and uh 46 to from uh 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. So I had recommended 49 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 39 dBA from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Uh but my understanding is um with reduction of um the level from 59 to 56 we will see a lot of difference. So I still would think we should go for the lowest possible but uh we should start with this for now.

Okay. So there's no further amendments on agenda item 260112. No. Okay. Anybody else have questions or discussions on agenda item 260112 here? Alderman Messi.

I just want a little a clarification. Um we talked about it a little bit yesterday. Uh you and I tried to connect today. It didn't work out. Not your schedule, not my schedule. Um didn't cross very well. Um page two uh there's two iterations after plan commission approval and I want to talk about uh paragraph 4 starts at line item nine. You modified that paragraph. Uh can you explain to me zoning administrators sole discretion uh and how that relates negotiation beyond zoning ordinance? I mean is it prohibited? If you can explain that paragraph for me, why it was changed and what does that mean?

Would it be okay to go to legal on this one first? Well, it was added by our legal department. So, I'm happy to weigh in. So, so the um it is on. I don't have a cool green light. I have to Yeah, but it's all right. It's on.

Um so, so I I added this language. Um so, in our discussions um more broadly about um um conditional use and how it's how it's used um within the city. Um we had discussions about utilizing development agreements more broadly. Um this portion of the ordinance paragraph five paragraph 4 um gives staff the authority to enter or to negotiate not you guys have the final authority on on entering agreements but but to negotiate development agreements. Um, in my experience, negotiating development agreements work best while you are dealing with all the zoning and planning and all all the, you know, all the stuff that has to come before you anyways for approval. Um, if you do it after the fact, it's kind of a afterthought and it becomes, you know, you you lose some leverage in negotiations. Um, it's something that I would like to run concurrently with the zoning and planning application. That way when plans are being made and you know the city says, "Oh, well if you only want your egress to be off of Farnsworth, you need to put a stoplight there." And they say, "Well, we don't want to pay for a stoplight. Let's replan this." Those are the types of discussions that we need to have while something is in, you know, while something's in the planning stage before we're finalizing um those, you know, before we're finalizing agreement about who's paying for what and um how, you know, how a zoning and planning and and how things are going to be built. So, someone has to make that decision on whether or not a a development agreement is appropriate. Um, and that person should probably be staffed because it's going to be long before it gets to your attention. The final development agreement is going to be presented to you with the zoning. So,

it goes through planning and zoning commission. It um, you know, all the um, you know, any, you know, just like now if a special use comes through, you know, comes through the after the hearings, it comes to BZE, if there's annexation stuff, that's all done. It's all puted together as a package for you and as part of that now it will just be to the extent that we um find that that a development agreement is appropriate that will be part of that package that would be all approved or disapproved all at once. So that's that's the purpose of of it. So the reason it says administrator sole discretion is because someone in staff needs to make that decision. The zoning administrator is the one that administers the zoning ordinance. they're um that's you know the zoning administrators the staff individual that handles every all the discretionary decisions within the zoning ordinance. Um that's that's their job. That's um um um you know that that's what that position entails. And um I think that's important that staff have a you know be able to you know have the authority to determine whether or not a development agreement is appropriate and whether you know you know have authority to negotiate these things consistent with the zoning ordinance um so that we can present it to the city council all at once. The other thing that uh your Dana explained to me while as having taken your question to her. So what happens now is that if somebody has a problem, they start calling all different staff members and if they start talking to legal about a situation that belongs in planning and zoning, legal or some other department might say something different which that developer might construe as

some form of offer and acceptance and say well then they start playing each other against it. This happens all the time. Uh we have a lot of people that have a yes opinion is the term.

So what this does is it specifies that it's the zoning administrator who is going to be speaking on behalf of these issues. Not the legal department, not economic development. Because if that person, that developer talks to all of them, they'll get a different thought or opinion. And it also um sometimes creates confusion among staff and we've found a need to have these multiple department meetings on issues as they come up. Uh but this lays out the process from the beginning. I don't know if you have anything to add.

No, I think uh the point you just made is an important one on on opinion chopping that does that's happened my whole 27 years here as well. So this term final agreement is prepared comes before a committee city co city council. It can be altered by the city council. Can it not? It can but um it will be at a point where you know it it it can be altered. It can be altered by the city council. It's a yes or no. Yes or no? That's all. It's a it's a yes.

Okay. So we can modify it. It's not when you say final, it's a final staff presentation of the agreement that the other side has has agreed to.

Okay. But they still can appeal city council if they feel they they want to and we can entertain that appeal before us. My my goal in bringing agreements before you are are to make sure that the other party has agreed first so that that you know so that you're not you know so that it's not I you know I want to bring it to you when when we have agreement not before so that we're not um there's not um um wheeling and dealing you know at the city council level. I want to make sure that you guys are in a position where where you know you know that the other parties agreed so that you are aware you know where you are in the process.

I'd like to make sure that an alderman award alderman has still has the opportunity to weigh in on the situation and also say yes or no on some specific item in that res in that in that agreement. Uh because typically we're not involved in those agreements. A lot of times, a majority of times, these negotiations happen without us knowing in terms of what what they come up with and these discussions and the mayor has the authority, especially after recent email, we got to go to the mayor and the mayor is probably not going to tell us until it's all worked out. So, we're not tampering with any negotiations happening. So my concern is we still have with the way this legislation is written, we still have the authority as W alderman, especially it affects the 10th ward or the first ward that have potential sites for data centers to weigh in and say, you know what, this agreement is great, but or they're approached by or they they see it they see they get approached by the community or the developer and they want to make an adjustment, whether it's less stringent or more stringent, they still have that opportunity to to be engaged in the discussion as soon as it comes before a committee at a minimum.

I think I think that it's not it's not the in intention of this to to be that that the alderman, you know, are not consulted, you know, if it's their ward. I think that that's you know I don't I don't think that that's the intention of this you know to the extent that you know the alderman wants to be informed about what's what development you know what um submitts and and um plans have been um you know submitted for their ward I think that that's you know that that's fair but the the concern I would have is just that if we if we have a full agreement and then we're we're back you know backsliding from it it's um it makes it difficult for staff to negotiate.

Okay. But it doesn't preclude a ward alderman getting involved or an alderman at large or a group of alderman to get involved in the agreement after it's presented to us. This final staff agreement. So it's a final staff agreement, not a final city agreement. Did they always have the power?

You you you always have the power to to suggest amendments or to, you know, to to vote down um an agreement. I think that the the concern, you know, I I know you're looking for a black and white answer, but I think that there's this triggers some of the the issues with the ethics ordinance. I think it also um you know it also triggers some concern with you know whether you know you know how how I I'm I'm a I'm I don't you know you do always have the authority to to turn down an agreement whether or not you know you know we can backslide in negotiations when when we've reached a certain point um I think it depends on the agreement

and what is it how does it trigger the ethics ordinance Um, well, the I guess it would depend how you were involved in in agreement or how you were involved in in influencing staff with making zoning decisions or permitting decisions or performance decisions in a way that would favor or disfavor a certain developer over another.

I think we're making assumption now that something's going to go go arai. I want to go on the assumption things are going well. Meaning staff has a final a final staff agreement and the alderman any alderman has the ability within their rights as an alderman per ordinance and the city council to get involved here at the dis in regards to making changes to that agreement and starting the conversation for having changes to that agreement. I I I don't see to all matters Germaine

I don't see a problem with with from the dis someone you know if you guys want to make you know suggestions to an agreement or make changes I can't guarantee that the other side would accept but that's you know that's doable we can do that

because right now I'll tell you right now there's a concern the fact that you bring up the ethnosource and you explain it as if there's assumption that we're also going to do something that's negative um and contradictory to what we're allowed to do as alderman. I'm trying to figure out how we're going to do it the right way and what's what's allowed to us once this final agreement. Make sure that we all understand that this is a final staff agreement, not a final city council agreement. And we have the authority to be involved in it, especially if it's in our ward or maybe an old an alderman at large as well. They want to partake in it. I think that's the clarification. Yes, I think it is a yes or no answer,

but but it also I want you to be aware though that that that greatly undermines my authority or staff's authority to negotiate anything. So, so if everything is, you know, I can say it's subject to city council approval that it's subject, you know, a yes or no from the city council, but if everything is if every clause in the agreement is renegotiated at city council, it's, you know, it's like it's why why do why do the negotiations beforehand? If you're concerned about negating your authority, then I'm concerned about negating any alderman or city council's authority. I don't think that this does that. There's still My concern is it's going sideways this conversation.

Right. Think you're right. So that's that's my concern at this point. Um because I'm getting more confused with this conversation.

What she's saying is at any point any agenda item that comes before the council has the ability to amend it. What your Dana is saying is then the deal might fall apart. For example, we have some properties that we're selling that Patrick has negotiated on behalf of the city with guidelines that the city council put in place years ago. If um we the the the offer and acceptance that Patrick has negotiated for that property is $100,000, but the ward older person thinks it's worth $120,000. Um, well, first of all, if they had that, we would take that $120,000 offer from wherever, but uh and changes that they have the ability to change it here at the dis, but the the deal might fall apart.

Is it is that an accurate example of what's being said? I mean, it's pretty much Yeah, because it's, you know, we we you know, we're staff is doing, you know, not just legal, but talking about this is talking. So, I'll I'll rephrase I'll rephrase it a little bit then. So based on what you said, mayor, uh the council has the does the council still have the authority to direct staff to adjust an agreement that's brought before us as a as a body, not as a individual. I think that if you had concerns during a DST meeting and raised those concerns, I think staff would

they be able to get information and the data required to make to make uh a plea to their colleagues if they felt a need might be there to make a change if um I mean I mean how else would you find out if you have a concern so you have a concern over part of the agreement and you want to find out what's what the situation is so in other words if there is a concern that you can make an amendment to the agreement how would you do that go ahead John you have something to say

well is I I would suggest it's also important to understand that the uh development agreement is not working in a vacuum. Along with the development agreement, you're you're talking about concerns you have, you also have a conditional zoning approval that should you not get come into uh agreement with the agreement that's been negotiated or the developer's inability to uh rework something in that agreement, I suspect you're not going to approve the conditional use. So, the two things are working in tandem and we're intentionally trying to bring them to you together.

And I remember a time when I was able to amend a development agreement on the council in my early days. It was um about about a restaurant deal and uh they brought Dave Devbo up to the um microphone and he said we didn't need paragraph Q. U I made a motion to remove paragraph Q. It was seconded and everybody voted yes and it was removed. Okay. So I mean you still have that power and ability. The intent of the paragraph is to direct direct um people towards the planning and zoning person is the authority to determine whether the development agreement is needed or not and what the terms are. I can just say if something is happening and it appears to be controversial, we would want to consult the ward older person. Um and I think that's pretty typical practice. Um, we did our best on the property sales to send those out and make sure to have conversations with the walder people in advance. Um, I don't think the the intent is to undermine the alder person. I do think that

I understand that it's not to undermine, mayor. Okay. So, I'll say it again. I'll do it a third way. Uh does it does it reduce any level of authority already enacted to the city council in regards to execute their their sworn duty or allowed? It doesn't do no it doesn't do anything to the the city council's authority currently in place.

Okay. So then what's the difference between this amend this this paragraph 4 and everything that's done again? Uh so final agreement again. So then final agreement is a staff agreement. Um and we have we still maintain our authority as a city council to make changes. I don't there's no final agreement term in here. This is paragraph 4 states at the z at the zoning administrator sole discretion a conditional use is conditioned on the owner entering into an agreement with the city concerning the required regulations and performance standards. So this is an internal staff uh paragraph. It's for internal staff. It's not for doesn't pertain to city council.

Yes. This is staff is authorized to prepare, negotiate and have the city um and to to execute when we get there such agreements. So, this is just authorizing staff to it's authorizing the zoning administrator to determine whether a development agreement is needed and then it allows city staff to prepare and negotiate that. The have city execute is after you approve someone has to execute and that would be in this case the zoning administrator. And if you want to No, go ahead. I'm sorry. to maintain

and how does that affect the plan commission as well? Does it reduce anything that's the authority? No, the plan commission doesn't hear the plan commission does not decide development agreements. They decide zoning, right? So still zoning is typically part of of a of a project when it comes forward. Yes. This does not change zoning. Okay. So they still have to get the conditional use. So it doesn't it doesn't reduce the authority of the plan commission on their charge duties and it doesn't reduce any level of authority to alder manic charge duties. No. Okay. All right. I think finally got that question answered.

Alderwoman Bait. So currently with all the other businesses is this line included or it's specific to um data centers and data warehouses? No, it's broader than that. It it it applies to all special use or conditional use. Sorry.

Going forward with any kind of business. Yes, that's the the way we set it up was that it would be to the zoning administrator's discretion because as we were discussing it, we didn't want to limit it just to commercial because your small mom and pop shop probably doesn't need a development agreement. Um, we didn't want to limit it just to resident or didn't want to just exclude residential because frankly some of your larger apartment complexes and stuff or subdivisions would need a development agreement. So in order to it, you know, we left it to the discretion of the zoning administrator just because it it it's a little bit of, you know, rather than trying to categorize when we need a development agreement, it's it's not something easily categorized. It's it's a certain certain size, certain um property owner, certain develop type of development that will need it. And it's a you know it's a little bit of of um you know a little bit of determining you know when it's required you know then then we can move forward with it for your single family residential it's not it's not needed and you know

before we added this how was it working this was amended to the document yes right before we added this to this document how are we working with all the other businesses or any development. We did development agreements. Not at all. Very rarely. No. I mean, for zoning or when we did the zoning, we didn't really do it unless it was um economic development agreement agreement, but for zoning, we really did not do do that. Okay. That's not

Yeah, we have done them for public improvements. It's It's the same thing as staff um will bring forward a roadway agreement. It's the same thing as staff would bring forward uh a annexation agreement. Um and we we do that all the time when we have those agreements come forward. So, currently

just another tool. Currently we are discussing data warehouses and warehouses and we are having an amendment for all the zonings for every business or any development in future. So, so the reason we did it is initially we had this set up so it would just apply to data centers, but with with our discussion internally, we thought this really applies more generally because the city doesn't use development agreements and frankly I was a little shocked to find that out. Um, I've never heard of a community of this size not using development agreements. Um, I consulted with some of the prior council and outside council, um, and they just said it was just a pattern in practice here that they didn't use development agreements, but agreed with me that was a good idea. So, in order to give staff the authority to move forward with it, we want to we wanted to make sure it was real clear in the zoning ordinance that staff could negotiate these things. Um, frankly, I think there's an argument to be made that staff could negotiate with them, you know, for them anyways. But, but I think that this just clarifies that staff can, you know, staff can decide this staff has the power to negotiate and it allows it allows us to get get these development agreements as needed.

So, should it include that all type of developments? What I'm trying to get to is uh we are discussing data warehouses and warehouses and we are including everything in this particular um as a rule going forward. So this is this is an amendment to to section um 49-104.3 which is the conditional use section of the zoning ordinance and it applies to all conditional uses.

Yes. And we've used redevelopment agreements. Still not sure. No, we don't use them. And then there's economic. What I'm trying to suggest is if it is for conditional use for any type of every type of project coming forward, it should be part of something else, not this particular document because this is specified for warehouses and data data centers. So I I think that is this is broader than chapter 49 is just zoning

zoning. So warehouses is underneath that lore. Yes, but chapter is excuse me I was just explaining chapter 49 is is just titled zoning the purview of Miss Vasich and so underneath that data centers are underneath that in a certain section 104 or or whatever but in other areas zoning applies to everything applies to residential commercial everything. So this is in a section that is going to apply to everything. It only conditional uses

or conditional uses.

And do you have any idea of how these will be coming to you or when you might use them so you can expand on h how how you might see a need for these outside of data centers. Just to clarify. I mean I you know if there is anything that we would do maybe it would be for um anything like a health concern or anything other than that we can think of um that we would maybe want to see in a agreement but uh it really wouldn't fall under the the zoning of it if that makes sense. So it could be a annual, you know, it could be that we're asking them for annual data or something to that extent.

And if Alderman had a concern and they brought it to you, how would you handle that? We would work through it. Okay. Any other questions on agenda item 260112? Yes, mayor. I have one more question. Oh, go ahead. Alderman,

of course, I have my architect cap on with this one. So, uh, Mr. Curley, page 11, on-site renewable energy and resilience requirement. Looking at the amount of energy required to run these systems, let alone uh kickstart some of these systems when some are already on and the the big draw that they have. Where did we find this 25% requirement for battery backup? And is that 25% enough? Do we have an idea that this is this legislation here is doable on-site resilience and also on-site clean energy? I mean, I it's not that I don't like the idea, but is it doable? Is it realistic? And do we have data or an example that this is doable? Uh well, Allison uh was involved in uh creating those items and as we added last time, there's an important um additional passage for alternative compliance, which is this the second item uh or the one of the items you mentioned earlier, but I'll let Allison talk about how we arrived at the percentages, the goals of the section, and also that alternative compliance section.

Yes. Thank you. Um, so to the answer to your question, yes, these numbers are feasible, but we did put in there flexibility where they can either decide between renewables or having that battery storage and if they cannot meet those two things on site, then they can figure out an alternative compliance path. Um, to your question about is it enough, I think we could probably ask for more, but 25% on on the renewable side and 50% for the batteries seem to be a good compromise. Um the state of Illinois in the power act is looking at asking them for 100% renewables, but they also are saying that if that's not feasible, they can come up with alternative um uh ways to meet that goal as well. So, um I mean it's up to you if you want to make that more stringent, but that was the number that we at least knew was feasible. It is it's still difficult to do. I would say if we want if they want to do it onsite, you saw how much land we have. If they're going to bring renewables on site, that's going to take acres and acres and acres of solar as an example if that's the renewable energy that they have.

Okay? So, it's doable. But doable in what way? It's a very general statement because renewable so say if you're doing um solar panels how much more area would they need in order to you know for example um you want geothermal if I'm building a house on a small little lot and I don't have enough extra space behind for for for geothermal. Yeah it's doable but not on this lot. Right? That's what I'm trying to get at. So what does it mean by it's doable? What type of source do we have? what type of data do you have if it's doable? What are the metrics that are around it? That's what that's what I'm trying to get at. Um how do we know it's doable? Because that's a very broad general term doable um right now. And even to consider to go even higher when I don't even understand how 25 is percent is achieved. It's a little um optimistic uh for me to to think about considering. Uh let me put it to you this way. There are plenty of examples of large hypers scale data centers that are meeting this or exceeding this that are meeting 100% with renewable energy right now. Um some of them are most of them that I'm talking about are doing that on-site. There's various ways that you can do it and I think it will be up to the discretion of our zoning commission and you all whether the proposed data centers that come in meet those requirements. Um, and then I would just also say that's why we put the feasibility in there as well, um, as a different alternative and that can be met with a number of different ways. They can buy renewable energy credits. There's there's a lot of different ways to do that. So,

all right. Would you agree that not every site is capable of providing that 25%? Yes. Okay. So, it's doable, but not at every site. It depends on the site. It depends on how much open land there is around it as well and part of the development package. Yes. And it also depends on what type of renewable energy they choose. All right. So that's why you have the feasibility

alternative compliance because some some aren't some are not going to work with a business model that people come petitioner may come forward. So it's not just a basic yes it can do it. It can't do it for every for every property. Okay. And I mean I it's not going to slow me down in regards to uh moving forward with this type of legislation, but I would love to know an example or two that you researched uh and show me uh what that is. Uh I believe we're trying to work on a on a schedule to meet next week. So if you can bring if you can bring that to the meeting. Yes. Be really appreciative.

Yes. I I thought this we had it scheduled for in a month, but if you'd like to meet sooner, we can do that. next month. April 2nd. It's next week. I had it on April 30th one on my calendar. Oh, I was Oh, we I got to talk to Mr. Jacob. All right. We'll work it out. We'll work it out in a schedule as far as when the two of you will meet and it's understood that we can bring some examples to the meeting about sustainability goals in the city of Aurora. Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Alderman messak. No, that was it, mayor. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay. Anybody else questions or discussion? 26011. Mayor Lash. Alderman Barrow. I wanted to piggy back on Alderman Mesakos.

So, we're talking about a lot of different things to regulate data centers, you know, decibb distance, all these things. This is another one, right? Uh this this percentage of on-site energy and trying to get these credits, it's not a sure thing. There's a lot of data centers that are applying right now to get these. So they may not get it. So this is another barrier. So so what I'm saying is the number of data centers that might come to Aurora might be zero because this is another example of something that may not be achievable. And so I just want people to know that this is not going to be an easy thing. All these different things combined is going to make it more and more difficult. So I think it it is stringent when you when you break it apart and and when you d do a deep dive into what is it what is it you're talking about here.

The real the real question though if you look at it in the state of Illinois they have to double their power production to meet the need of data centers. What we're doing is leading the way of what every municipality and every county should be doing and the state of Illinois should be doing because when all that energy comes online, it's going to be catastrophic for the climate crisis, it's going to be expensive and already they're starting to pass the cost onto every other uh energy user and rateayer in the state of Illinois. So, at a minimum, we're trying to set a standard and some guard rails. And what it what I would say it's doing is screening it's screening those that want to abide and comply by the rules. We have limited amount of land. We shouldn't take just anybody. We should raise the bar and set the standard and then encourage others to take those standards. That's the message I'm going to take out there to the other cogs because they're all facing the same thing. Not all of them are taking our approach, but they need to be. I mean, if we're facing brown outs by 2029, then this is a this is a statewide/PJM problem that that isn't going to be fixed overnight. But at a minimum, um I think it takes a step in the right direction and starts to set the standard. And just for awareness, we have had discussions with data centers that want to come in under the new ordinance and they're looking at a combination of what they can do to hit that 25%. Some of it's going to require offsite. They're aware of it. We're aware of it. But that's the the flexibility point that we've put in there. But the the real problem that exists in the state and everywhere else in the country is is energy 100%. And we're probably as a city going to have to do a lot more to address that concern. I think

Mayor Leash, I'm not I'm not saying that we don't need to u protect the environment and our communities. What I'm saying is that these these um this everything in the ordinance is making it tough. Making it harder. Yep. Yeah, that's my point. I agree with you, Alderman White. Anybody else questions? 260112.

Alderwoman Bait. So uh since we were still discussing this in again chapter 49 um the legislation text for this ordinance is an ordinance amending chapter 49 of the code of ordinances city of Aurora by modifying section 49-103.3 definitions and 49-104-3 conditional uses and structures with regards to data facility. This I'm reading the ordinance. Mhm.

And the ordinance itself says this ordinance uh which is 26-0112 is related to data center facilities and inside we are adding a line which will be applicable to all the future developments under conditional use. That is what is inconsistent. Either this needs to be changed or that. Does that make sense? I mean should So the title says data center facilities and you're changing a chapter including all the facilities under conditional use that are going going to come to city of Aurora for development.

The it it states the section it was adequately noticed. It states the section the 104.3 and um the exhibit A outlines you know red lines the changes. I think that's adequate notice to the extent that you want to amend it. That's up to you. So amend the ordinance h to include data center and all the facilities or all the businesses in future.

No, I'm just I'm just saying that I'm not sure what your question is. If your question is is was this adequately noticed? I I think it was adequately noticed to the if you're asking if you're moving to amend I think you need to be a little more specific about what you wish to amend. register that's

so what I'm trying to say here is the ordinance title as well as the chapter amendment section 49-104 they don't seem to be consistent just because chapter this main ordinance says it is pertaining only data centers but the content says it should it is including everything with conditional use. So, I I understand what what you're saying. I guess what I'm what I'm saying is I'm trying to think of a plate way of saying

she's trying to fix a problem that exists. Um we're using this opportunity to fix a problem that exists that we have not used we have not used development agreements attached to zoning in the past. So, while we're doing this to clarify this that's not what she's talking about. This is a title of an agenda item. It is not part of the ordinance. It does not say this wording in the ordinance. Uh I see.

So Alderwoman Bade had some questions about the title. The title is not a part of the ordinance. We're not voting on this title. This this is just an agenda item title for our purposes from the clerk and to the city council. So as we had a discussion maybe this could have said at the end because she says it pertains to and we said it pertains to everything. It could have said uh conditional uses and structures with regards to data center facilities and other facilities. And that tells us that this has to deal with not just data center facilities, the conditional uses. It also pertains to the other facilities. But this is just a title and it has nothing to do with what is in the ordinance. So that's where the confusion was. And I mean I don't think we need to change the title especially because it's already 10 o'clock. But um I'll leave that up to the chair. I and that's what I was trying I mean under the OMA I think that the the title the information that was attached um to the packet that you know was published I think that's adequate notice of what this discussion is

legisare issue legis okay any other concerns about the title Okay, if there's no other questions on 260112, I'm going to ask the clerk to please call the role. Well, is there a motion? We need a motion and second to approve it. I thought we had a motion this. Okay. Motion to approve. Is there a motion on agenda item 260112? Motion made by Alderman Larson. Second. Second by Alman Franco. Thanks for catching me on that. Ask clerk to please call the role. Barrera, yes. Garza, yes. Messakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes.

Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Fog, yes. Fade, no. Larson, yes. White, yes. 11, yes. One, no. Motion carries. Agenda item 260112 is adopted. Uh, next, I'll ask the clerk to reread agenda item 2609 0092. 260092, an ordinance amending the code of ordinances, city of Aurora by adding chapter 50, Aurora, responsible data center ordinance and chapter 51, data center privacy protection ordinance pertaining to performance standards and operational reporting requirements for data centers.

Is there a motion to approve 2600092? A motion was made by Alderman Franco, second by Alderwoman Garza. Discussion on agenda item 2600092. Alderman uh Alderwoman Bade, I think this is one you wanted to make an amendment on. Yes. I'll let you read the amendment.

So my amendment is environmental hazard mitigation study. So air quality should be monitored. any kind of uh um partic particles that are emitted or any other poisonous gases emitted during testing of generators and otherwise some kind of sensor should be placed at the facility so it can be monitored all the time is it is that your amendment yes second there's motion made by alderwoman Bade seconded by alderman Larson Any further discussion on this agenda item? Question. Alvin Frank,

how does that deal with the IEPA who does monitoring itself? How how would that work? Would one would one override the other or how is that? Thank you. Um, so I was going to have exactly the same question. So my understanding is that especially if you're talking about generators, those generators already have to meet specific requirements for um, you know, their emissions. So, you know, I don't know what we do if we see that they're not functioning correctly. That's something that the IEPA actually um administers and monitors. Okay. So, that is already covered.

Yeah, it should be already covered. It's not necessarily an air quality study, but the actual um generators themselves are supposed to be rated for those things. Any other questions or discussions on the motion that Alderwoman Bade is put before the council? Mayor, question. Alderman White. Yes. So, Mrs. Lindberg,

so I understand that the IEPA u regulates the generators. Uh, but I would assume they meet that standard when they're new. So when they if they start to degrade, how is that determined?

So I think that the way that they that gets determined is there would be some kind of complaint about it. Um you know they that's basically how they do all of their regulations there. It's not like they go around and monitor every single piece of equipment. Um, I guess I think that it would be fine if we wanted to say yes, you could put um uh some kind of air quality sensor on this, but in terms of enforcement because we don't have that standard in our um uh regulations right now, it would be up to the IEPA to actually do the enforcement if that makes sense. So, um, we could certainly monitor it, but we the standard itself is already set at the state and and probably for some of them it might even be a federal regulation actually.

Any other questions or discussion? Alderman Larson. Thank you. Uh, yeah, I guess one follow-up question based on that. Um, do we know if the like the IPA IEPA isn't doing continuous monitoring? So, would it be possible for us if we were to implement uh some sort of continuous monitoring and we find that they're out of compliance after some amount of time a generator goes bad uh and it's emitting too much um too many pollutants? Uh then would we be able to file a complaint uh and get that addressed more quickly than it would otherwise?

Um that's probably a question for legal, but my understanding would be that if it's at the state, we would have to move at the state's pace. if we had something in our ordinance that, you know, made it more specific that somebody had a right to make a claim um because it was a city ordinance, then then it could move quicker here potentially. Um yeah. Okay. Any other questions or discussion? Could you repeat the motion, please? All the woman u made there's been a request to repeat the motion. Okay. Just a follow-up question before that. Can I ask Allison,

do you mind reading just repeating the the motion to so everybody knows what we're discussing? And so the motion is to include environmental hazard mitigation study with uh this ordinance uh to monitor the air quality insulation of permanent or realtime quality sensors at the property line to monitor any kind of particles that are um emitted in the air from generator testing and otherwise generators running. Okay. And then so that's the motion. It's to to provide continuous air monitoring for the generators. Yeah.

And then you have a question for Allison. So does it hurt in any way to have a sensor at the place? It'll be just um an additional thing that we can get a reading from if there is any disaster. So I don't think there's any harm in it. My one concern about just the way that um the amendment was phrased is that the air quality would be at the property line and just as I believe it was Alderman Nunes had mentioned there are other particullet that might be contributing to that and so you wouldn't know specifically that it was coming from the generators. So it might be more pertinent to say that it's on the generators themselves rather than it being at the property line. Okay.

Can I get John? Do you have a second to come up? Uh and maybe just talk a little bit about how often the generators are used um and their testing cycles and how much time the generators are actually on because these are backup generators.

Yeah. The experience we have with the existing data centers in town is they are exercised up to twice a month for 20 minutes or so at a time. Um, I believe there are some different practices among the different data centers, but they vary slightly from what I just stated. So, so they're they're they're in save a power outage where they're running uh constantly, but the testing themselves, they can control the time frame. It's uh 20 minutes or so, and it happens uh once or twice a month depending on the uh the data center or if there's a power outage. if there's

and they're unable to get power, they might have it on for a little extended period and then the third time that they use it their generators is if they're changing out a transformer or something and and then there's notification it goes out to the residents, right? That would be similar to a power outage that they can control a little better than a full grid outage though and um hopefully minimize the amount of affected generators that would be running to replace one transformer because all of these large facilities have multiple transformers. Any other questions or discussion on it? I think real quick is it I guess so they're they're barely running regularly in in your opinion. Do we need continuous monitoring?

Um I I guess the the question in my mind is a comparison between what the permitted use of the of the land would have been aside from a data center. So what so that's the that's the in a zone you know zoning way of framing this is a uh distribution warehouse with the truck traffic that's coming from a distribution warehouse substantially different than what a data center is doing. the data center uh can run diesel generators uh all at the same time. And there'd be small periods of time when there's outages where the um uh diesel fumes would be could be substantially more than what's happening with uh a distribution warehouse, but you've all seen some of our distribution warehouses and there's substantially more actual traffic at data center, I'm sorry, at distribution warehouses than we're ever going to see at a data center. So comparing those two things, I'm not certain that uh the constant monitoring makes sense.

Thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Mayor? Alderman Bug, do you know of any other city um specifically ones we've looked at in the state or comparables in across the country would have some type of monitoring with their data center ordinance? I do not in in that research I do not recall seeing anyone else that was doing constant monitoring of diesel fumes. Thank you.

There's a motion and a second on the floor. There's no further questions or discussion. I'll ask clerk to please call the role. We're voting on the bade uh generator monitoring amendment pass. Garza. Yes. Messiakos. No. No Nunes. No Franco. No Seville. No Vanuelos. Yes. Smith. No. Bug. No. Spade. Yes. Larson. Yes. White. No. Barrero. No.

Okay. This amendment also fails. Any other discussion, questions on agenda item 260092? Hearing none, I'll ask the clerk to Has there been a motion on Yes. Motion a second. You have you have a question? Sorry. I have a few questions. Uh

I would say that this this is I'm going to I appreciate my the patience of my colleagues here. A lot of information has been thrown at us and uh it's this is not a really typical uh pace. It's a fast pace. I don't know if I recommend it moving into the future. We had to figure out another way of doing this, too. But I'm glad that uh Mr. Josh Ree put give us a 30-day extension as well to cover our basis, even though we were told that we were okay last week. But u my my question here is on page 14 um under section 519, uh line 16, the paragraph. U is this a scrivener's error in regards to any tribunal board agency or person? Do we have a tribunal in Aurora or

I'm sorry I can't hear you over do we have a tribunal in Aurora or is am I missing something after 14 years that scriveners error? No, that must be Yes, that's must be some kind of error. That is page 14, line item 20. Is everybody on page 14, line 20?

I know we have Wanzi Lake and Wanzi High School. All right, we can come back to that one. Um,

hold on just a second. It doesn't hurt to stay in there because we do have we do. No, that's um there's no reason to take it out. So So let me let me explain.

Yeah. Yeah. But let let me explain what it means first before we decide to take it out. So So this is pretty standard language. So So this is what it what it just says is that nothing in this ordinance, sorry, I want to make sure I'm reading the the Oh, here we are. Okay. um that nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to impact the administrative I'm sorry it's after 10 nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to impact the admission or discovery of biometric identifiers and biometric information in any kind of court or before any tribunal board agency or person that's not referring to our court tribunal board agency or person referring to other entities who may be involved in litigation or something. And this we want to state that this ordinance is not should not be construed to impact um a party's rights before another court or tribunal. And and some some states um and military courts and stuff use that term. And that's why it's listed here um as as um you know that that it and it you know should not um in any way impact um any court tribunal board agency or person.

All right. So we take from another state legislative piece. Okay. Um okay page 11 line item 13. Uh this is where the finance thoughts come in. The city may recover costs associated with enforcement if the entity is found violation of this ordinance. What would be anticipated costs? Could you just clarify real quick what those could be? Um I if I remember correctly man hours I should say more importantly.

Yeah. I I think that it actually does it clarify in there what it it can be I if I remember correctly it says something like it can be including but not limited to and then it specifies a couple of things. It's it's um that portion of the ordinance talking about enforcement includes both legal it it it gives the um that the city has the authority to enforce the ordinance through corporation council. Um and um or designated enforcement officer and the city u may investigate um suspected violations. Um and so both, you know, to the extent that we use um council, you know, outside counsel to do this or an investigator, we may need um you know, we may need a specialist to investigate or prosecute this. And this would allow us to recoup our costs.

Would it require to hire somebody to work on city staff? You mean that city staff? Can I anticipate the possibility of Miss Lindberg coming to the budget talks and saying, "I need another person to help with enforcement." Um, if if the um to the extent that it could be itemized for a specific violation, then yes, it could be SAP can always be um recouped if it's if it's itemized and and um coded properly so we can identify what it is. Yes. Is this something that maybe our property standards could be involved with some of our existing inspectors?

I would refer that to Mr. Curley. I don't know. I mean, yes, they they could. I don't know that they have the expertise. I just would be concerned if we're starting to grow government. So, to do some because this looks like it's not everyday stuff. So, you're talking about um section 51, correct? Yes.

Okay. So the way that that is written is that currently they will be providing an annual certificate of compliance that says that they're they're doing all of this. The only time that we would need any staff time is if they're not providing that certificate and then we would need to, you know, as as Jordana was saying, probably do some kind of investigation, which, you know, at first is going to be phone calls and that sort of thing. Um, but you know, hopefully we don't have to do that cuz you do have in here about Energy Star that's in chapter 50, right? But they have to provide data.

I mean, can we go on their property and inspect or how I mean, can we get be able to go into their building and check paperwork? I mean, what is it exactly we're doing here? So for so chapter 50 is different and chapter if I remember correctly chapter 50 does not say anything about recouping money if they do not comply with that. Instead it has fines if they do not comply with the um the reporting requirements. Um so I just want to make sure we're on the same page with that. And then um in terms of if they're not in compliance with you know providing us that information for through Energy Star portfolio manager then we do have the fines put in there and that's that's how we do that.

Okay. Um so we're going to be looking for for things and one of the things here that it talks about and I'm going to there's two things I'm going to mention together um so you understand where where I want maybe some more clarification. On page five, line item 11, uh, it says that the full ramifications of biometric technology are not fully known. And then there's also on page four uh line item 18 you know it says or 17 and 18 major n but this is for the state of Illinois. The major corporations have selected the state of Chicago and other locations in this state as pilot testing sites for new applications of biometric facilitated financial transactions including etc etc. So my question is if the state of Illinois is trying to figure out what's going on, their intent is to gather information. They have test sites, the ramifications of biometric technology are not fully known. What happens when we start and how do we approach this in terms of enforcement? What are we enforcing? What are we trying to gather and get? I mean, is this where we go above and beyond the state of Illinois when it comes to BIPA requirements?

No, the I I can answer that. So does that make sense? So yeah. So the so so the the um BIPA requirements mirror the state of Illinois. Okay. Only the only part that we are requiring is this an this this report. Okay. So essentially or or the certification sorry that that's the right word. So, the certification that they are complying with all of the state of Illinois and the requirements that that um the city is the city would adopt and if by adopting this ordinance. Your mic is off.

Sorry, my my mic is on and then I can't look at anyone. That's okay. So, so I don't know that. Yeah. Oh, well, that is not my fault. Okay. But it's 10:23. They're telling us we're done with our meeting, which fair. Um, do we want to wait for Alderman Seville before I answer this question? Because I assume he's disappeared, too.

Alderman Sevil, are you still with us? No.

Oh, yay. Okay. So happy to hear that. Okay. So, so I was explaining and I apologize that that the microphone went out. Um the what the chapter 51 does is it is it mirrors the state's BIPA language. Okay. It it um is I if not quite identical. We had to change some things that referred to different state agencies to refer to the city of Aurora, but it's it mirrors it pretty consistently. the um the issue the the issue that you were asking about about what are we enforcing what we are requiring of data centers is this certificate that they are complying with BIPA what the enforcement section is is if they don't file the certificate we have an enforcement mechanism to make them file the certificate that's that's what that is okay

and to the extent that we have to pursue some sort of legal remedy to get them to file their certificate which frankly I find it it shouldn't be necessary. It's just a certificate saying that they comply with the law. But to the extent that we do, we can recoup costs. That's what that's what that whole section. Okay. So, we're probably not looking for an additional person in the economic development or sustainability department at this point. Okay. That's a direct answer. No, we're not. We're just looking for a certificate. Uh if certificate's not provided, we're going to send John Curley to go out there and start looking around. Is that it? I thought I thought I'd send you. I mean, I think you

No, then I'd be violating that email that just came out yesterday if I did that. And then I'd be I'd be in other kind of heaps of trouble. Thank you. Again, I'd like to piggy back on uh Messiakos's question. Um my question has to do with the with the the data that's that's being stored. And we're only talking about data being stored on site. So, let's say there's a there's a data center and they have other affiliates and they're connected with other other sites. We're just talking about this particular site in in the city, not not if they're affiliated with some somewhere else and the data in that other building. Yes. Um is this one? I'm sorry. Um yes. Uh only within Aurora City Lawrence. Correct. So, whatever is in that data center.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion on 260092? Okay, hearing none. We do have a motion in a second. I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Fade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. This motion is adopted. I'll ask the clerk to please read uh the next agenda item 260114

260114 an ordinance amending chapter 49 of the code of ordinances city of Aurora by modifying section 49-103.3 definitions in section 49-108.10 office research and light industry district regarding warehouses in section 49-108.10 10 o office research and light industry district section 49-109.2 M1 manufacturing district limited and section 49-109.3M2 manufacturing district general regarding performance standards.

Is there a motion uh to motion made by Alderwoman Smith? Second. Second by alderwoman Garza. Discussion on agenda item 260114. Any questions? Hearing none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. Ferrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Vanuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bog, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes.

12, yes. Zero, no. Uh, agenda item 260114 is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the last agenda item on unfinished business. 260115, an ordinance amending chapter 12, article 2, building code of code of ordinances, city of Aurora by modifying section 12-7.1 additions, insertions, deletions, and changes. Is there a motion to adopt this ordinance? So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderwoman Garza. Second by Alderman Fran. Are there any questions or discussions regarding this ordinance? Mayor Lash, Alderman Burrow.

Yes. Um I would like to take up the uh issue brought up by the gentleman uh representing CME. I don't know if this is the particular area, but uh he had a concern regarding testing on on and not being allowed to test on on the weekend. And he explained his case about being having an enclosed uh situation where it's not admitting sound. Can we address that particular request?

So I think they turned them louder too. So So um I know that CME um CME has been in contact with um my office, me personally. Um several times in the last 36 hours I guess at this point. Um and we've I've discussed it with their um right before this meeting I discussed it with their in-house counsel. Okay. Um we've agreed to um continue discussions after this um you know after this meeting um regardless of what city council passed. Um I think that we need some more information about how they're they they call them barns that they keep these generators in. Um and I think we need some more information about how good how well these dampers work. I understand that the concept is that they because the generators are in barns and there's some muffling around the generators that it creates less less noise. I don't know to what extent um there hasn't been any sound testing on it and so I think that before we carve out exceptions for them, we wanted we wanted to um you know get get a little more information on it. So um we'll continue conversations with them. Um I've um I've agreed that we would work with them on enforcement issues um in the meantime to make sure that we were um to make sure that that we can um um you know be be responsive to them but also you know we want to stay to the to you know to the heart of the ordinance. So, they're an existing facility and um you know to the extent that we can get some more information about how these barns work and how they damper sound and you know to the extent that we can you know you know to the I don't know what I

don't know what those numbers are. So they're they may fall under the decibel. I I I don't know. So that so there's too many unknowns to to kind of come forward with it. But what I'm hoping is that we can reach um some sort of agreement that then would be brought before you as like this is how we're going to handle this specific building because of its location, because of its unique barn structure, etc. And that is something that um um I was informed that they have this unique circumstances yesterday. So

So what what would be the the path forward then for them to you know apply for a hardship or I mean how would that what does that look like? Well, well, right now what I what I've agreed with their council is that we would hold off enforcement with them for a set period of time, which has not been agreed upon, but I proposed 6 months so that we could work out we could allow them to do what testing we need to determine whether or not we are like whether or not we can reach an agreement. Um I they are doing some um improvements to their um to to the building. Um I don't want to go into too much detail here but um there may be some room to um you know for less water usage and less power usage which would you know come the the existing data centers by virtue of the fact that they they are grandfathered into our um you know they're not subject to a lot of the the new changes we just made. So they don't have to um you know come you know they they don't have to um come up to all these new standards immediately and so you know to the extent that they are willing to you know voluntarily do that I think that's a that's a plus for the city um and would be consistent with our sustainability goals. So that's all something that's that's evolving quickly here because this has just been in the last 36 hours. Um, but what I've agreed right now is that we'll continue discussions and um eventually have an agreement for the city council to consider and determine whether or not that that is something that that you want to proceed with.

So the the short answer is we're not going to enforce in the short term. She has exchanged emails with their corporate council and then work out a solution because they have a pretty unique generator setup where they need to test their six or eight at a time in a barn which has not been creating problems for the residents. In fact, one per public commenter did mention that it when they test theirs, they hardly notice. So, I don't think that non- enforcement on that will be an issue. We didn't want to hold up the rest of this uh while we iron out their specific situation. Is that is that good for Alman Barrow?

Yes. So, you know, they they are in war 10. So, I guess they'll be contacting the alderman. This is also the the first data center that's been there since 2010 2011 purchased a 20 and I don't think they've had problems with this data center. Barnes are the answers. Alderman are you are you any further questions? Yeah, I just wanted to um respond because we did have someone speak and did not get an answer. So I we've been taking calls all day. Okay. Okay. Alman Messi.

So this this is not if I may ask a question of alderman BO. So this is not your question doesn't have to doesn't relate to the resolution before us at this point. 26-0115. No I correct I think I missed it. I think it was under 0092. All right. Okay. So a point of clarification as well regard what we're going to vote on right now. Mayor if I can from Mr. John Curley. This is a 2024 amendment, 2020 IBC code, IBC amendment. So, anything already been built before now is not affected by anything we were going to vote on at this point by I think I know the answer, but just for the record, by exhibit A.

Yeah. So, the testing is pointing to modeling before permit and the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Um, so anything that's already garnered a certificate of occupancy, none, neither of those two would apply to. Um, but the testing itself, I do have the ability to insist on the on the testing for even facilities that predated this ordinance because it's in the building ordinance. The difference though is the standard by which I'm measuring it happens to be the older ordinance with just for sound for ju with just the Illinois Pollution Control Board Act. But it gives me the ability to insist on a test with a consultant of our choosing at their cost before we issue a certificate of occupancy.

Appreciate that clarification. Thank you, Mayor. Any other questions or discussions on agenda item 260115? Although woman Smith,

I just want to piggy back off of Alderman Barero's. um as I had also had um a lot of conversation today with CME and and our corporate council before we were came in today and um she told me the same thing that she just explained to everybody here. So I feel confident that uh we're going to be able to work with CME and um get to an agreement with them that may look a little bit different um once we spend some time with them getting to know them a little bit better. Any other questions or discussion on this agenda item hearing? None. I'll ask the court to please call the role on 260115. We we do have a motion in a second. Correct.

We do. Barero. Yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Venueos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, no. Larson, yes. White, yes. 11 yes, one no. Motion carries. This ordinance is adopted. Uh, new business. Is there a motion to suspend the rules to consider items under new business? A motion was made by Alderwoman Smith, second by Alderman Franco. Uh, will the clerk please call the role? a moment of celebration.

It's not over. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiacos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bake, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. Uh, I'll ask the clerk to please read the first agenda item under new business. 260189, a resolution authorizing the devestment and sale of city-owned property located at 574 East Galina Boulevard. So move. Motion was made by Alderman Franco, second by Alderwoman Smith. Are there any questions? Alderman Messiacos.

Oh, of course. Thank you, mayor. I appreciate it. Uh, is our our city treasurer here? I want to ask her a question. Where is this with the money that's being uh collected for the sale of these properties? Uh where are we going to park it? Which uh which funds is it going into?

I don't believe in corporation council pass your comments. I can answer that question. Some of the money goes into the general fund. Some of the money goes back to the individual departments that spent the money in order to get these properties ready for sale such as the survey. Um it was either MOA or planning and zoning. Uh and then some of them had appraisals on them as well. The money goes back to those areas. It also pays for uh uh the reer to get them on the MLS. Um and with there's four of the well three of these on the agenda this evening. Uh some of them will include um well no the one 801 claim was being pulled off the agenda. So there was some real estate uh fees charged to that because that was marketed by Dolan and Murphy.

Okay. But how much are we are we going to put in the fund approximately do you think? I'm not going to hold you to it, but um I would have to crunch the actual numbers on it. They're I would say 80% of the money that we get on each sale. We'll go into the general fund. Um in regards to um the realtor we there's a realtor selling it for that not that representing us

with Dolan and Murphy on some of the properties. Yes. On this property, no. We are working with the real in order to get the property on the MLS so we can have it advertised. That's how we've been able to see a lot of traction on hence the four properties that are before us today. But it is a low flat fee. There's no percentage. We're not paying percentage to any buyer as uh as well. Is there a reason we're using someone from Wego?

He gave us the best price. We reached out to three different uh realers. Uh we had worked with uh some of them were from Dolan. No, some of them were from either we had then I think two of them are from Moed uh that we had that we had used in the past. This was the one who was giving us the lowest fee. Okay. So, we've used this this realtor before. Yes. Any of the properties that we bought through the development before have all been Okay. All right. All right. Thank you very much. I just like to add that that Patrick has suggested that other proceeds should support the law department's budget because for bonus correct

we we did there was that has not been approved

well because I I would say that we do have a vast array of Aurora realtors I know there's there's a handful of people from the city council that were one recently as well we have one here on city council no no offense but you can't get involved But uh I mean if you even we were at the u Hispanic women's power power dinner uh not too long ago. So but anyway I just um wanted to know if we're going to move forward with the policy and how we can get more realtors here from Aurora uh as well. Maybe figure out but that's that's something that should go to committee so you can have an idea. Thank you mayor.

Okay. Any other questions on this agenda item? So the final price in this one part 26 is 500. That's correct. So we're going to get how much? 26500 minus the approximately 80% or more of that. I don't have the exact number on the closing price of whether there's any additional costes for closing fees or any of the other one. But that would be it's an allcash offer um with some of the new real estate rules. We'll see how those go through. But some court cases will but that's they didn't give you intentions what they want to do there. They want to do

uh no there they will be uh building a single family home on this property. This was uh Benes Builders LLC out of all um Elurn uh spoken with property standards. They have had no issues with them before on any of their building problems or anything else before. Okay. Great. Alderman Bug. Yeah. Very quickly um I know you are the messenger. Um, normally when these came out of um economic development, Mr. Debo or someone else, uh, we always insisted that there be a map. I guess they didn't put one in on these. Just for the future if, forgive me for these three, but I can get those on future ones. Okay. We have or Yeah, like I said, you're the messenger. Um,

well, economic development has that stuff at their fingertips. So, are are you asking for a map of where the property is? Yes, normally we have that and uh so we don't have to go back and search. I I'll follow on the story. It's my fault. We we do have some stuff through planning and zoning that we've also listed that are on the MLS which kind of shows a smaller general map of the area a little bit bigger as well as any of the marketing stuff that we have done. I can include those going forward. They are all on our website as well. So, you can go click there. Thanks. Any other questions or discussions on this agenda item? Hearing none, I'll ask clerk please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Meos,

yes. We had a motion, right? Yeah, we did. Yep. Motion. Motion was made by Alderman Franco and seconded by Alderwoman Smith. Thank you. Was that a yes? Yes, it's a yes. It's also Nunes. Yes. Franco. Yes. Cel. Yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Please. Bug, yes. Bait, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Uh, this motion carries. The resolution is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business. 260190, a resolution authorizing the devestment and sale of city-owned property located at 773 Aurora Avenue. So moved. Is

there a motion to approve this resolution? A motion was made by Alderwoman Smith, second by Alderwoman Garza. Are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? Yes. Alderman Burrow. A quick question. Is this lot buildable? Can I consult them? Okay. They're they're all buildable. We're only marketing ones that are buildable lots. This is another uh builder developer. We've checked with property standards. There's no issues with them. Uh they will be building a single family home on this lot. Thank you. Are there any other questions or discussions items hearing? None. I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Ferrero, yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Ranco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith,

yes. Vogue, yes. Bade, Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. This resolution is approved. LS clerk to please read the next agenda item under finished business or new business. 260191, a resolution authorizing the development and sale of city-owned property located at 1127 Tom Street. Second. Second. Uh third. Is there a motion to approve the resolution? Resolution was made by Alderwoman Smith, second by Alderman Franco. Uh are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? There being none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Makos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville,

yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Fade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes, zero, no. Motion carries. This resolution is adopted. The clerk to please read the final item under new business. 260192, a resolution authorizing the devestment and sale of city-owned property located at 801 Claim Street.

Hello, your assistant corporation counc. We're asking for this item to be pulled. There's been uh some other offers and one of the previous city offer sales we've had fell through and they we have a new buyer on this one and a new buyer for the other one. So, we're asking for this agenda item to be pulled and we'll bring it back to you with better offers including maps. We'll remove agenda item 260192 from new business and bring it back with a higher price tag and maps. Okay. Thank you. Enjoy. Okay. No other no other items under uh new business. There's no reports uh bills uh agenda item 2601 88 bills uh large and bill list. Is there a motion to approve and pay the bills as presented?

Alderwoman Smith second by Alderwoman Garza. Are there any questions or discussion items on the bills? Hearing none. Will the clerk please call the role? Guerrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Paid. Yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no.

Motion carries. The bills will be paid. Uh we are in need of a closed session pursuant to the following section of the open meetings act section 2C11 to discuss pending litigation. Do I have a motion to enter into close session and therefore adjourn the city council meeting with no further action or public business to take place for the purpose of this meeting? Motion was made by Alderwoman Garza. Second. Second by Alderman Larson. Will the clerk please call the role? Herrero. Yes. Garza. Yes. Messiakos. Miakos. Yes. Nunes. Yes. Franco, no. Seville, did you say no? Yes. Vanuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bog, yes. Bade, yes.

Larson, yes. White, yes. 11, yes. One, no. Motion carries. At 10:47 p.m., the clerk the council will move into close session as soon as the public uh leaves. Uh if you're not here as supporting city staff or an elected official, ask everybody leave so we can enter into