City Council - Regular Meeting

and the meeting of the Aurora City Council for December 9th, 2025 is hereby called to order at 6:02 p.m. Will the clerk please call the role? Alderman Barero here. Alderwoman Garza here. Alderman Mesakos present. Alderman Nunes here. Alderman Franco. Alderman Seville here. Alderman Vanuelos here. Alderwoman Smith here. Alderman Bug here. Alderwoman Bade here. Alderman Larson here. Alderman White here. Mayor Lash is present. Is there a motion to approve the appointment of Sergeant-at-Arms for this meeting? Motion was made by Alderwoman Garza, second by Alderwoman Smith. All those in favor?

Any opposed? Motion carries by voice vote. Uh tonight I'll ask Alderman uh Messianos to lead the pledge of allegiance. Pledge of 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. [clears throat] And next I'll ask uh John to give us the mayor's report. Perfect. Thank you so much, mayor. An exciting night here in Aurora as one of our very own residents just won the Athletes with Disabilities 100yard Breaststroke State Championship. [applause] Part of the Asiggo East and Asiggo High School co-op swimming and diving team, Addison Miller of Aurora's ninth ward, captured the state title on November 15th and finished in second place in the 200yard freestyle, 50-yard freestyle, and 100yard freestyle. Aurora, the champ, IS HERE. GIVE IT UP for Addison Miller. [applause] We'll also invite down uh the Miller family. Obviously, the mayor is here, members of school district 308, and W9, alderman Edward J. Bug. A shout out to Edward Bug for giving us the inspiration to honor Addison here tonight. W 9.

So, thank you for joining us. Uh, Oldman Bug, without further ado, this is a huge accomplishment. Uh, so to Addison Miller, we are presenting the mayor's award of excellence for winning the athletes with disabilities 100-yard breaststroke state championship honorably representing both the city of Aurora, the asiggo community unit school district 308. You are making Aurora and our schools proud. Thank you so much. [applause] And I just going to give her a brief minute to say a few words and then we'll pull this microphone out of the way and take a photograph. Okay. Is that good?

Yeah, that's okay. Um, I want to thank my family and my friends and everyone for supporting me. Um, it took a lot of hard work, but it was very fun. Thank you. [applause] Justin's gonna take a picture so you can stand right here.

All righty. Ready? One, two, and three. Perfect. Now, before we wrap up, we have one more surprise for Addison. Uh, our amazing street maintenance division came up with a beautiful commemorative sign that you could take home that commemorates your state championship. It's a souvenir sign courtesy of the city of Aurora. Thank you for making Aurora proud. [applause] [applause] Ready? One, two, and three. Big smile.

Thank you. We like to thank and the city of Aurora because without all of your support, we wouldn't have been here. So, thank you. [applause] I don't know where she going, but Congratulations again to Addison Miller. One more round of applause for her for representing Aurora. [applause] A brief report tonight with a big agenda yet to come. Thank you so much for being out here tonight. We'll see you soon. Thank you.

Okay, that concludes the mayor's report. Next, we'll move to appointments. I'll ask the clerk to please read the first resolution. 25908, a resolution authorizing the appointment of Diamanto Messakos to the Aurora [clears throat] Youth Council. Is there a motion? Motion made by Alderwoman Smith, second by Alderwoman Garza. Are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? There being no further questions, will the clerk please call the role? Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos. Cordely abstain. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benvos, yes. Smith, yes. Vog, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White,

yes. 11, yes. One, abstain. This resolution is approved. Congratulations. Uh give us just a minute and we'll come down there and take a photo. We'll invite the third W alderman as well. Will the clerk please read the next item under mayoral appointments. 2500952 a resolution authorizing the appointment of Philip Vanlier to the Aurora Civic Center Authority Board. So motion made by Alderwoman Garza. Second by Alderman Seville. Uh are there any questions or discussions regarding this resolution? There being no further questions, will the clerk please call the role? Question. Um may I you you have a question on this agenda item? Go ahead.

Discussion.

Um so I don't know Philip and I'm sure he I've heard wonderful things about him and would do a fine job at the Aurora Civic Center. Um, but I am not going to be in favor of this item tonight. Not because I'm against him, but because we have three people that are sitting in the AKA consent agenda now that have been um detained, put on the side burner or whatever without any type of conversation or acknowledgement to why they have been pushed to the side. ACT is not a board that you start from scratch and make it successful. It's a board that does need some continuity. It does need some experience and we do need new people. So I appreciate the fact that we have somebody new stepping forward and evidently we have several new people but we need some experience to train those new people. So, from my perspective, until we get a couple of experienced people back on the AKA board, I'm not going to be able to support um the new people coming on as I feel like uh we're already putting AKA through a lot um with this budget um adding this on top of it um is adding another layer of issues to AKA. So, that's my opinion.

Okay. Are there any other questions or discussion? Alderman Franco. So, uh, I would like to piggy back on what Alder Alderwoman Smith said. Um, there is no reason that those three people that [snorts] were supposed to be on the board got pulled an hour and a half before the last meeting where they're supposed to be on there. It's still very suspicious and mindboggling how that could possibly happen. So, without that leadership, that veteran leadership there, I don't think, and again, I think this person could be fine. But unless we have that veteran leadership on there, I can I cannot vote for somebody new when we don't have the veterans there to help out. It's just it's just a matter of practicality and common sense. So, I will be voting no on this also for that reason. All right. Any other uh discussions or comments?

Alderman Barero. Yes. Uh I um I know uh Mr. Vanlier. He's a very very fine gentleman. He'll do a great job. He'd be a great asset. Uh I was very very pleased when this nomination came forward in the in the um rap committee. However, we also had the the previous wrap committee. We had three gentlemen that were going to be reappointed. And so we need we need a mixture of both um veteran and and new um board members with fresh ideas. But uh you know I was expecting to have voted on those three reappoints already, but they got they got removed from the agenda. [clears throat]

So, if this goes forward for a vote, I'm going to vote no. Not against Mr. Vanlier, but for the principal because we've been asking about these reappointments and why is it taking so long for these reappointments. We were told that by the end of the year, we would we would be voting on these appointments and here we are with only one. So, if this goes for a vote, I'm going to be no, but if those other three come back, I'll be a yes vote on this. Thank you.

So, just to answer some of these questions, I mean, Mr. Van Leer is highly qualified. He's a professional actor. We're very fortunate to have him in our presence. He's going to bring new fundraising prowess, new ideas. Uh as of now, we have not replaced the other seven board members. Uh so there will be experience on the board. Um, I understand that uh there's concern about the process, but we are interviewing and there's going to be some excellent uh candidates who uh bring both experience um as well as some past board members uh that will get reappointed uh but that are going to be more in line with the vision that we have for the Aurora Civic Center Authority. So, I understand the concern uh that people have, but uh there's no reason Mr. Van Leer is probably as qualified as you're going to get and a very high caliber candidate. Any other questions or comments?

Oh, Mr. Mayor, Alman White. So, I had a initial pause at first with Mr. Van Vaner. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend the rap committee meeting and I I watched it and I I see the resume and I see the theat the background in theatrics. I had question about the ability to do things such as fundraising and so forth. So since you brought that up u I'm okay with Mr. Vanlier. Initially I was going to vote no unless he was here to uh give us a little more background on outside of theatrical performance but hearing that then I'm okay with it.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Hearing none. I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrero. No. Garza. Yes. Messiakos. Yes. Nunes. No. Franco. No. Seville. Yes. Benuelos. Yes. Smith. No. Bug. Yes. Bade. No. Larson. Yes. White. Yes. Seven. Yes. Five. No. Motion carries. This resolution is approved. [clears throat]

Next, I'll uh that being done, uh I'm going to ask um Alderman Messianos and your son to please join us. Our daughter, sorry. Bring the whole family up [laughter] and uh we'll get a few photographs. Ready? One, two, three.

[clears throat] [applause]

Okay. [clears throat] Next section on the agenda is public comment. Uh madame clerk, do we have any members there's a public wish to offer public comment? Yes, we do. Next, I'll ask the clerk to 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 the 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.

Madam clerk, will you please read the name of the first person to offer public comment this evening? Angie Smith. Good evening, Angie Smith. Welcome, Miss Smith. You have three minutes beginning now.

Good evening, Angie Smith, on behalf of the Wester School District. I'm here tonight to publicly support the proposal for the development at Orchard and Sullivan. Um, this is a property that's come up for years in our development meetings, and we're very appreciative of the efforts of [clears throat] the city, the county, and the developer to get it to this point. Um, currently, this is farmland, and so it only returns about $1,000 a year to the district. Um, as proposed, every million dollars of uh, value will return almost the amount of a teacher salary to the district. uh in addition to the sales tax revenue that would would generate for the city, we know that growing our commercial and industrial tax base helps residential taxpayers. So for that reason, we wanted to publicly acknowledge our support of the project. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Smith. Madam clerk, could we please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment? Michelle Gums. Hi, everyone. Welcome, Miss Gums. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thank you. Good evening. Uh my name is Michelle Gums. I'm speaking tonight as a resident of Aurora who ret who routinely travels the Orchard corridor. I drive this route regularly and I want to express support for the proposed gas station on Orchard from a practical community focused perspective. For anyone who drives this corridor, the gap in service is obvious. The closest gas station for northbound traffic is Orchard Stop Station at Alcott Road in Montgomery near Route 30. From there, there is no gas station available to northbound drivers until you get to Woodman's in North Aroar. That's about six miles, give or take. It's a very long stretch for such a heavily used regional roadway. On the southbound side, there are only two gas stations serving the entire corridor. As this area continues to grow, the imbalance becomes even more stark. I also want to address the idea that supporting a new gas station somehow means voting against the environment. This is simply not true. I believe deeply in environmental responsibility, clean energy, and long-term planning, [clears throat] and I know many others in our community do as well. But treating every proposed gas station as an inherently harmful is a false comparison and not a pragmatic approach. Decisions should be based on context, data, and community need, not blanket ideology. Modern gas stations are built under strict safety and environmental standards. Today's regulations require advanced spill prevention systems, double walk wall walled tanks, continuous leakage detection, and groundwater protection safeguards. These requirements make new stations significantly safer than older facilities built decades ago. Supporting this project does not mean accepting outdated risk. It means embracing up-to-date, regulated, environmentally responsible infrastructure. This location also presents an opportunity to improve the sustainability along Orchard Road. After reviewing publicly available data, I found no EV charging stations along this along this stretch of Orchard Road between Alcott and Woodman. That gap should be addressed. Adding EV charging infrastructure to this proposed development would bring Orchard Road

into alignment with Aurora's long-term mobil mobility and climate goals. Fuel and charging can and should coexist during this transitional period in transportation. In short, approving the station is not a vote against the environment. It's a vote for balanced, responsible planning that reflects how rural residents actually travel today while preparing for how they will travel tomorrow. It's a chance to improve safety, expand services, and incorporate future forward infrastructure. For these reasons, I ask that you um support the project. And I also would like to say in my 27 seconds, cutting the budget for public safety is not something that I support. Um diversity didn't work overnight. It happened through training and investment in our cadet programs. Um, and I think that uh also it insurance goes up when you have less services in fire protection. So that's going to cost people more at the end than it will in the beginning. Um, that's something to consider as well.

Thank you, Miss Gums. The clerk, please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment. Rick Lawrence. Merry Christmas. can say that. Welcome, Mr. Lawrence. You have three minutes beginning now.

North Aurora has three of the most successful restaurants in the area. They have four times the amount of car dealers that we do. They have Woodman's. Neighborville just opened up Block 59, two Costos, dozens of car dealers. Montgomery gets gets Cooper Hawk. Asiggo, all of their development all along 34 they and now they're getting to Trader Joe's. Yorkville gets a Costco. We have a developer here that only asks one thing, not even any money for us, but just to let them build the development that on land that has been sitting there. Well, then we get the crisis nomads that come out of the work out of the works and come up with all kinds of reasons why you can't build a simple gas station. Whether it be, oh, we're going to ruin the animals or the environment. They had no problem with taking the farmland and filling it up with houses that impacts our schools over off a prairie. They have no problem. There's no animal thing with all the town homes that are being built by Home Depot. And then they come up with, oh, human trafficking. Well, every happy ending massage parlor that pops up all over the place here and in every other city, they have no challenge about that with the human trafficking that supports that whole industry. But it's a gas station that's the human trafficking problem. Now, we do economic development to offset the cost of living for our residents because it pays school taxes. And unfortunately, the best thing that we have going on district 129 is North Aurora because they do more economic development in district 129 than we do. And so when a developer comes in and they don't want any money from us, they

just want to build. They're gonna invest all this money. We should say yes and offset the cost of living to taxpayers. What did you give the taxpayers? Grocery tax, water rate, more than $100 million worth of debt under you. Now we're going to raise the property levy. We need to start thinking about the residential taxpayers and offsetting the the school tax because that was what comes from property tax. The sales tax all dumps into you guys and you know we piss that away all day long. But the property taxes that we generate commercial property taxes offsets the cost to the residential taxpayers. That should be the concern of the of the county, not the wingnut group that comes out and protests every little activism that goes on because they have no solutions. All they want to do is raise the cost on the taxpayers and Aurora has done really deserves their three minutes.

I'll ask clerk please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment. Lupe Garcia. Welcome, Miss Garcia. Feel free to adjust the microphone. You have three minutes beginning now.

Thank you. Uh, first I'd like to just say thank you to city council members, to mayor. Uh, thank you for the service to our city. I understand it's not an easy job to maintain and manage all of the things that everybody asks for. We just ask that you would consider and and seek the Lord's discernment in everything you do for everybody in the city. And it again it's not easy but we pray that you will do the right thing for our city and and it's not always an easy answer. Uh with that I I would just like to also say that although we um you know we we don't always know the answer I I firmly believe that we seek the Lord for the answer. So I pray that today and all the decisions you make that you seek the Lord. So, I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to pray. Um, I'm going to pray that you seek the Lord and go before him in all things that you all decide today. I pray that the Lord gives you discernment, strength, and courage in the face of adversity because there's a lot of adversity out there. I pray unity for the good of all the people in our city, our state, and our nation. And sometimes we don't always know what to pray. So, when Jesus, somebody asked Jesus, "What do we pray?" He had said this in Matthew 6:19-13. He said, "Pray like this." Therefore, you should pray like this. Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses as we have forgiven those who trespass against us. Bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. I pray that we can consider that particular prayer in everything we do. In Jesus name I pray. Amen. Thank you Miss Garcia. Madam clerk, do we have any more members of the public wishing to offer public comment?

Yes. The next speaker is May Bates.

Welcome Miss Bates. You have three minutes beginning now.

Okay. Thank you. Good evening everybody. Thank you for your service. My name is Mavis Bates. I am the chair of Sustainable Aurora, Mayor's Advisory Board, among other things. I'm here tonight to remind you of the environmental concerns of putting a new gas station in Aurora. Please remember that volatile organic compounds, the the fumes from the gas station will be released every time someone fills up, creating air pollution that can cause asthma and other illnesses and smog. Every time somebody puts gas into their car, these volatile compounds will be released. underground tanks. While I know the mo the more modern ones are safer than the old ones, but someday uh and sometime they can leak into our groundwater uh threatening our water supply which Aurora relies on. When these gas stations are abandoned, the land can be uh can be abandoned for many years. Uh cleanup is expensive and uh often falls into the hands of into the hands of the taxpayers. Uh the planning staff recommended against this project. Please remember if you pass this project tonight, you are adding these environmental risks to our already burdened ecosystem and risk to our water supply. Uh for these reasons, I ask you not to support this project, but to find a higher and better use for this property. We all want thoughtful development, and we all want those sales tax dollars to come to Aurora. I urge you to rethink this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Bates. Uh will the clerk please read the name of the next person wishing to offer public comment? Cord Greenwall. Is there a Cord Greenwall? Cord Greenwall. Okay. Uh that's the last person that was uh signed up to speak. There's no Mr. Greenwall. Next, we will uh move to the public hearing. I'll ask the clerk to please read the public hearing agenda item.

25982. a public hearing pursuant to 65 ILCS 5/8-2-9.1 through 9.10 for the adoption of the city of of Aurora 2026 budget public hearing for Ledgear file 25-0946. Thank you. Uh does staff have a presentation for this public hearing item?

Okay. Is there anyone from the public who is Stacy available? I guess let me ask the council. Does the council need any additional item on this? We are voting on a budget later in the agenda. Uh but for the purpose of the hearing, would staff need a presentation? I'm sorry. Would the council like to see a presentation? It'd be the same presentation we've already seen. Okay. Is anybody in the public uh wish to make comment on this item? There any members of the public here tonight who wish to make comment on this agenda item? I'll ask one more time. Is there any members of the public who wish to make comment on this agenda item? Seeing no additional person to close the public hearing

wishing to be heard, the chair will entertain a motion to close the adjourn to public hearing. Uh there's been a motion made by Alderman Franco to close the hearing. Is there a second? Second. Second by Alderman Barrero. Uh 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.

Motion carries. This hearing is adjourned. Uh, next uh before the uh next we'll hear the consent and direct to council consent agenda in full. I'll ask the clerk to plead read please read both agendas in full. 25321, an ordinance amending chapter 12 of the Aurora Code of Ordinances titled Buildings and Building Regulations to adopt the 2024 I series of codes and recommended amendments. 25692, an ordinance vacating city easements and storm water control easements on the property located at the southwest corner of Butterfield Road and North Farnsworth Avenue. 25853, a resolution to award a one-year contract for Keeper Security, a password management solution to Insight Public Sector from Arizona in the amount of $29,535.32 for a one-year term. 25865, an ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Special service area 44, 25867, an ordinance lobbying certain special service area taxes for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Special service area number 66A 25868. An ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Special service area number 66B 25869. An ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Special service area number 66 C 2550870. An ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for fiscal year

January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025. Special service area number 66D 25872. An ordinance levying special service area taxes for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Special service area number 67 25880. A resolution to accept the proposals received for the 2026 Water and Sewer Maintenance Division Plumbing Service 25918. A resolution approving a one-year lease agreement with Nadler Golf Car Sales Incorporated for the use of 72 GPS equipped golf cars not to exceed $54,885. 2550932, a resolution to award a one-year contract for no before, a security awareness training solution to Insight Public Sector from Arizona in the amount of $25,4948. 25954, an ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025, special service area number 90. 25903, a resolution concerning the review of closed executive session meeting minutes. 25983, approval of the minutes of the Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 city council meeting. 25986 approval of the close session meeting minutes of November 4th, 2025 and December 2nd, 2025.

So move. Is there a motion to approve both the consent agenda and the direct to council agenda as read? A motion was made by Alderman Franco. Is there a second? Second. Second by Alderman White. Uh there any questions or discussions on any of the agenda items listed in this? Alderman Nunees,

I actually wanted to remove 25-0954 the consent agenda the SSA90. Okay, we'll uh remove agenda item 25 0954. Thank you. and place that under unfinished business and come back to it in just a little bit. Yes. Any other comments or questions or agenda items that council members like to remove? There being none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. Verrero, yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, yes. Nunes,

yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. zero. No.

Motion carries. The consent agenda and direct council consent agenda are both approved. Now, before we move to unfinished business, which we do have a lot of, uh there's been a new business item uh that has come forward because of the moratorum. It moves directly to council. So, uh the legal council has advised that we take a motion um to move in a different order. Um, is there a motion to suspend the rules to take an item out of order and move the new business item after the consent agenda? All all this does is lets us bring the new business up. And the reason for it is so the petitioner can come and be heard and we can move this through and then move to our unfinished business.

So moved. Second. Motion made by Alderman Barrero, second uh by Alderwoman Garza. Uh, are there any questions or discussions before we move forward? So, all this is a motion to move the uh new business up before the unfinished business. Okay, no further questions. 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. Motion carries. Now we'll move to new business. Is there a motion to suspend the rules to consider items under new business? Some move.

Second. Mo motion made by Alderman Larson, second by Alderman White. Will the clerk please call the role? Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiacos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. Uh, next we'll entertain the one item under new business. I'll ask the clerk to please read the agenda item. 25976, a resolution approving a moratorum hardship appeal to allow construction of a warehouse on property located at 2695 West Sullivan Road.

Is there a motion to approve or do we want to get a short presentation? Sure. Go ahead.

Uh, hi Tracy Basic, uh, planning and zon zoning and planning director. Um the the petitioner is here and they're requesting approval of the moratorium hardship appeal to allow construction of a warehouse on the property located at 2695 uh West Sullivan Road. Um as you are all aware, the city council approved a 180day moratorum on the data center uh data center facilities and warehouses in all zoning districts to allow staff time to establish zoning [snorts] regulations for these uses. Um as part of the approval approved ordinance the application may seek an exception to the moratorum. Uh to obtain the moratorum exception the applicant must uh demonstrate clear evidence uh that number one the effect of the moratorum has caused or will cause economic hardship on the application. Number two, that the application applicant cannot yield a reasonable return on the property if a data center or warehouse is not allowed. Number three, that the applica uh applicant has made substantial investment in the development or of the data center or the warehouse that is affected by the temporary moratorum. Which investment has been made in reasonable reliance on the regulations in effect prior to the temporary moratorum and without knowledge of pending changes in such regulations including the temporary moratorum and based on reasonable probability of zoning approval by the city. Um and then number four that the data center or warehouse would have been allowed as a matter of right under the pre-existing zoning ordinance. and number five that the data center and the warehouse as proposed complies with all applicable city ordinance and regulations. Um the petitioner is here so I will let him speak um to what he feels his ex uh his evidence is. Um I will say that the plan commission um did recommend approval of this uh this

appeal and this this has been uh ongoing work for quite a while. Correct. Um they have had uh several DSTs with us. Um they did uh come in like a week after uh after the mortorium moratorum uh started and uh they they have obviously spent money on um getting those plans ready. Okay. Just state your name and tell us why you're here.

Thank you, Mayor Lege. Uh my name is Colin Anderson. and one of the attorneys for the petitioning appellent land owner Mary Lynn LLC. I'd like to thank the city council for considering this hardship appeal to the September 25th ordinance imposing a moratorium on the construction of a warehouse facility in the designated location. Um as set forth in the appellent's written request for relief, all of the elements as stated um for the petitioning landowner appear to have been met in this present instance. Uh first, the effect of the moratorum has and continues to cause significant financial and economic hardship to the appellant. The appellant purchased the property in July 2024 for $232,000 with the intent of developing the property into a warehouse for the storage and distribution of commercial goods. At the time, this was consistent with and permitted by the city's then existing zoning and development ordinances and regulations. And the appellant obviously had no knowledge that there would be any moratorium imposed that would prevent or preclude this intended use. Thereafter, in furtherance of this goal, the appellant did incur over $85,000 in architectural and design expenses and $1,400 in permitting fees. It wasn't until October of 2025 that the appellant submitted all the documents necessary for the site development to the city for its approval, but then learned of the existing moratorum. um that was learned by the appellant on October 16th after all these expenses had been incurred. Um the project is therefore currently on hold and if prevented from proceeding with the planning and development of the property, the appellant will continue to lose substantial sums including insurance and taxes while the property remains vacant and unproductive. Obviously, this would preclude any intended use for the property much to the the appellent's uh hardship. The appellant has therefore made a significant investment in the city uh and has acted in good faith within the city's zoning and development regulations. Again, the appellant had no

advanced notice or knowledge that a moratorum would be imposed or was even being considered until it learned of the moratorum on October 16th. Um the building and development plans are still subject to the city's approval and review. And all that granting this hardship appeal would do is to allow the planning to proceed. If the moratorium is lifted as requested, the owner will be able to presume its planning with the city and at all times will ultimately comply with all applicable ordinances and regulations. So in light of these hardships, we would request that the uh the moratorium be lifted in this specific instance. And I appreciate your time.

Okay. Are there any questions or comments from the council? This is in W five. Alderman Franco. So, I'm not up to speed on what's going to go in there. Um, so this is just to lift the moratorum. Is that correct? Because, you know, I'm going to need a little bit more information, you know, for support or not, which is fine if we're going to go through the process. I just want to make sure because I got I got to know I I want to know square footage. I want to know all that stuff. So, as long as that's still going to come, you know, and we could still say yay or nay or whatever modifications we need, then I'm good with that. I just want to make sure.

Yeah. So, this does need to go through a final plan process. Um, so we will be uh bringing this forward to uh plan commission as well or actually I guess it would just go straight to BZE because it's just a final plan. Um, I I know that uh staff will then start now we start reviewing it. So I think there are some some things that we will want to um you know have have changed but we will get a bite at the apple. Yeah. I just want to I want to make sure that I have some input in the conversation at least know what's going on so you know yay or n support. Okay that that's fine. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Basic basically

they've spent some money on this project already. Before they spend more, they want to know that we're going to consider it without the moratorum. So So the Any other questions or comments from the council? Alderwoman Smith. Is this a mortorium for this one particular situation or are we lifting the moratorum all together? We're not lifting the moratorum alto together. This would just be for this this appeal. This would be an exception to the moratorum. Thank you. In the mortorium, we wrote in a hardship. Yeah. And procedure we did and this is what they're and it's what they're going through. Any other questions or comments from the council? Here's there a motion for approval.

Motion made by Alderwoman Smith. Second by Alderman Benuelos. Uh any further questions? No further questions or comments. I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrera. Yes. Garza. Yes. Masakos. Yes. Nunes. Yes. Franco. Yes. Seville. Yes. Benuelos. Yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Okay. Motion uh carries. This resolution is approved. Thank you for coming before the council and we'll look forward to seeing you again in the future. Thank you for advancing this matter. Thank you.

Okay. Next, uh we'll move back to unfinished business. Um I'll ask the clerk to please read the first agenda item. 25378, a resolution authorizing the director of purchasing to enter into a purchase agreement with 58 group for the procurement of a test of a drive test scanner for the Aurora Police Department in a total amount not to exceed $170,000. Okay. So, this item has been held at this uh level and I believe there is a motion that's been prepared and I believe purchasing is has uh done their work with Lexus Nexus.

Yeah. Uh, if now is the time, I would like to make a motion to amend this resolution to award the contract to Lexus Nexus instead of 5A Group for an amount not to exceed $195,424. Motion's been made by Alderman Larson. Is there a second? Second.

Second by Alderman White. Uh, first, uh, I'll ask Jolene to come up and give a short presentation about the work that she's done. Is Commander Raleigh here as well just in case people have questions?

Good evening everyone. Uh Jolene Coulter, director of purchasing. Uh we did reach out to Lexus Nexus. They this was a bid that is over 90 days old. they will honor their original pricing at $195,000. We did confirm with them regarding the training aspect and to ensure that the APD was going to get the training they were requiring for this project. Um I believe that everything was met on that case and uh Patrick Collins corporate council had requested us to have them ensure that they were going to agree to our standard terms and conditions which they which they have.

Thank you. Commander Ry, anything to add? Uh no, just the the additional cost of $25,000 would we we would need to pay that out of our uh asset forfeite funding. So there would be a change in how it's funded or the amount rather that's funded. We'd have to work with purchasing and finance to find those extra funds. Okay. So are you saying that they don't exist already in asset fore? We we have assets for asset forfeite funds available. We would just have to move more money. Y understood. Any other questions or comments uh from the council on this motion to go with Lexus Nexus? Yes, mayor. Alderman White.

So, from my understanding, this uh drive test scanner was going to be paid with asset forefeiter funds already. Correct. Okay. So, you're just looking to add additional from that same pot of money to cover the difference. Correct. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the council on the motion that's before us? Alderwoman Smith. Yes. So um do you see any differences with the two other than the cost the two different um protocols that we're talking [clears throat] about here?

I I believe that the uh the cost was the driving factor in our initial selection. I believe that uh p purchasing was able to negotiate the increase in training that we needed that wasn't initially provided by Lexus Nexus in their offer. I think they've brought their amount of training that they've offered up to the level that the other vendor offered initially. So that was our other sticking point. So now it just remains for the price difference. Thank you. Sure. There any other questions or comments from the council?

Yes, Alderman Bug. Yeah, it was it was brought up that uh you know there could be an issue if we went another way with this vendor. We are not obligated to go with any given vendor. It is the most responsible bid as we see uh the purchasy department does an excellent job on vetting those things out. Um but there are many times where we have chosen a uh second choice uh where we felt they were more responsible and uh I believe I don't want to take the words from my colleague Alderman Larson but I believe that's the reason he has put this forward. So um I just want the council to know that we've done this before. We'll probably do it again. Um and and there is no issue with selecting a second choice if you feel that it is uh a more responsible bid.

Alderman Larson, did you want to highlight the reasons for the motion? I didn't give you that opportunity at the beginning. Yeah. Um just for the record. Yeah. I I stated this in the previous meeting, but um Lexus Nexus is a much larger uh and more established company. They have a bunch of products. Um, I believe the police department already works with Lexus Nexus. Um, and they have uh contracts with a lot of police departments across the country in comparably sized cities. So, I think this is a a better choice based on that experience.

Any other questions or comments on this agenda item or on the motion? There being none, I'll ask the clerk to call the role on the motion uh before the council. Brero. Yes, Garza. Yes, Messiacos. Yes, Nunes. Yes, Franco. Yes, Seville. Yes, Benuelos. Yes. Smith. Yes. Bug? Yes. Bade? Yes. Larson? Yes. White? Yes. 12? Yes. Zero. No. Okay. The amendment has been approved. Now, will uh is there a motion and a second on the agenda item itself? Motion. [clears throat] Motion to approve by Alderman White. Is there a second?

Second by Alderwoman Smith. Any questions or comments on the agenda item? Alman Alman Mesakos. Alman Franco. Alman Autowoman Bay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, uh, the title will reflect the change of the company name. It'll it'll include the amendment that was read as Alderman Larson presented it. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments? There being none, I'll ask clerk please call the role. Guerrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiacos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith,

yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, no. Wade, yes. 11 yes, one no. Uh motion carries. This resolution is approved. Can Can I ask question? We're going to move to the next agenda item. We've got a long night. Uh next, I'll ask uh the clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business. Okay. Thank you. 25845, an ordinance granting a conditional use permit for a drive-through restaurant use on the property located at 404 North Eola Road. Is there a motion for this agenda item? Motion made by Alderman Seville. Motion to please place this on hold. Second.

You want to put this agenda item on hold? Yes. Uh do do you want to table it and leave it at here at this level? Yes, please. I would like to table it and leave it at this level. Okay. Motion to table. Just for clarity, um are you tableling it just to the next meeting next week or to next? To the next meeting. Yes. Okay. To this is the 16th I believe. Sorry. Okay. And the reason I I I want to table it. I'm still Let's get a motion a second and then discussion. Is it second? Motion made by Alderman Benuel, seconded by Alwoman Garza. Nunes. Nunes. Alman Nunes. Okay. All right. Discussion. Go ahead.

Yeah. And the only reason I want to table it is um because I I went and spoke to some of the members or some of the business owners um and um they were unaware um and they were actually my understanding they were sent an email or they were sent notification and some of them had not received it yet. So in reality that's the only reason I'm um making sure that the business owners are aware this is coming to to them and that it doesn't affect their business. I'm I'm total I'm totally fine with the the the owners Dr. I mean I'm sorry I believe it's Mr. Cobbler. Uh I'm total um I am very um supportive of his development but I I want to make sure that the business owners are are aware

to for just for a point of clarification um just what is it you want staff to do moving forward in I'm just waiting for um confirmation from the business owners. I I spoke to some of them, but I'm waiting on confirmation from the ones that uh I haven't been able to get a hold of. Okay. Um so I will say that there is in your packet um there's letters from um from from most of the tenants. Introduce yourself again. Sorry. I'm sorry. Tracy Vas, director of zoning and planning. And I'm Steven Bravo, planner with the zoning division.

Um so I believe there is all except two um in there. Yeah, we we did, alderman, we did add um re um letters. Uh the owner, Mr. Cobort, did um receive written confirmation from eight of uh I believe 11 tenants in the in the space. We did add it in this morning um following the committee of the whole meeting last Tuesday. Um the owner did go out and spoke with the tenants um and got this written confirmation. Um so he had been working on it the last the last week. Okay. because I was there yesterday and and the one of the owners that I spoke to had not received that email and he had he had not signed anything. Okay.

So I which where where what item is or where is that? So I can see it's in the uh the final plan packet um which is uh 084 25846 um and we actually have a Mr. Cobore handed me a letter um a printed letter for for one of the additional units. So the the item in there is um one letter out of date but it can be updated easily. Is it let me just ask staff a question. What what are the negative implications if uh this is held for another meeting?

There is none. I mean it would just make them wait until they're we're done. So Okay. And so there's two letters left to uh get or is it just one letter?

Um well I think there's um the there's a I think it's a Rush Clinic in there that is a little more corporate and less local. The ownership is um but it sound when I spoke with Mr. Cobore um earlier this week that they were okay with it. Um the other one is I believe the Wing Stop and then Pauly's but I think Pauly's would honestly be the least one of the least affected. Paulie's Pub and Grill um which is out there. It's probably not I would say not impacted by any visibility or traffic issues created by this proposal. Okay.

Um I mean it again the the owners of the tenants business have signed the letters. Um it's it's entirely possible that Mr. Cobra was not able to get in touch with with the the owners at the time that you had spoken with them, but um I I'll withdraw my motion. You sure? Yeah. Oh, the majority of them are here. U the the couple that I spoke to, I mean, um he he hadn't had time to review the letter and so um Okay. Alman Benwellis like to withdraw his motion to table. Withdraw my second. Withdraw a second. Um, is there [clears throat]

There is a motion and a second to approve this. Are there any there's no second? Sorry. Alderman Seville made a motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. Second by Alderman White. Any other discussions? Yeah.

Questions? Alderman Bug? Yeah, I will uh offer up because I'm the one who asked the question of the petitioner and he told me that the tenants already knew not that he was going to go out the following week and informed them. So, uh, Alman Benuelis, if you want to reconsider, um, petitioner came to that podium right there and told us that all the tenants knew of this project. And now we're learning that that was not necessarily the complete truth. So, um, I also wanted to know because I frequent a number of those establishments and I talked to the I know some of the owners there, the tenants, and none of them mentioned a project to me and that would be something that they would

discuss. One of them is a resident on my ward. So, uh, actually one I guess she she she must have signed this week, but at the time the petitioner came here, she did not know about this. I'll let the petitioner respond, but I believe that they had they've had conversations. I think he went back and he got letters from them so that they can put them in the packet for you, but I can let the petitioner respond. And please do because uh I will ask my friend again if she knew about this before last week. Yes.

And and actually um one one thing I would like to say is that the the petitioner did complete the public notice process which includes posting a sign in front of the property. So the tenants would have seen the sign presumably and would have known this is happening. And if they hadn't, you know, they would have obviously been Mr. able to reach out to Mr. Cobber who's seems very um I appreciate the sign, but that was my question. Mhm. Yeah, but I'm just saying that they they would they would have been aware of it. Okay. If they're on site. Do you have any questions for the petitioner? Either Alderman Benedos or Alderman Bug.

Yes, I do. Uh so sir, last week you said that uh all of the occupants tenants knew about your project. Yes. Okay. And you send them a letter with the drawing. You send them a letter with the drawing. Okay. The the layout, but he he had previously spoken verbally to them to the tenants before that meeting. Can you just state your name for the for the record? Sorry. Then I came back again and did that. My name is Emily Hoffman. I'm with Cook Engineering Group. Okay. And this is Andy Cobbler. Yeah. Thank you. So, previous to the meeting, you had spoken to all the tenants.

I didn't hear. Previous to the meeting where you came here and said you spoke to all the tenants, you had already spoken to all the tenants. I did, but it was all verbal. I wanted it in writing like he has most of verbal right. Okay. I'm just flipping through here. You had spoken to Miss Patel. Which Patel? We got a couple of Patels. Subway. Oh, yeah. For sure. You had spoken to her. She's perfect with us. Well, she's got a a signed letter from her. Oh. Oh, I I see that on the 6th. You spoke to her before the meeting though.

I talked to all of them that like the one that's a tough one is the Rush Hospital. You know, you got to go way down the line. It took six months to renew the lease. Okay. That's how they work. And uh so they did not reply. Okay. But you spoke to everybody else. I sent them. I couldn't speak to him because I couldn't nobody returned a call on that. The rush he's talking about Rush specifically. Rush. Yeah. I I think the alderman's question was about the other everybody other than Rush. Did Did you speak to Subway before you sent the letter? I did. And the others? Yes, he did. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay. You don't trust me, do you? [laughter] Are there any I I I remember the conversation. I remember you said you own the other properties. That that's what I remember. But uh are there are there any other questions or comments on this agenda item for for staff or for the petitioner? Okay. Thank you very much. Uh there being none, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Guerrero, yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug pass. Babe, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. Bug, yes. 12, yes, zero, no.

Uh, this motion carries and the ordinance is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business. 25846, a resolution approving a revision to the final plan for the Oakhurst Center subdivision located at 404 North Eola Road and 444 North Eola Road. Is there a motion to approve this agenda item? So moved. Motion made by Alderman Franco, second by Alderwoman Garza. 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. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes.

Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. This resolution is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business. 25864, an ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025, special service area number one. Uh, is there a motion to approve this agenda item or any questions on this agenda item? I believe this is one Alderwoman Smith maybe you put on unfinished. Um, yes, I put the next two on unfinished. Just a a brief just have a brief recap from um staff

Stacy from finance. Good evening. Stacy Peterson, chief financial officer. Um this item is for SSA number one. Um, this is an SSA that is in the downtown area and it's primarily for downtown revitalization. Okay. There any questions or comments on this agenda item? No.

Okay. Uh, is there a motion to approve this agenda item? So move made by Alderman Franco, second by Alderman Barrero. Any further questions or discussions on this ordinance? There being none, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Perero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiacos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, Vanuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 11, yes. Zero, no. Motion carries. This ordinance is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business. One

25873, an ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025, special service area number 24. Are there any questions on this agenda item? Yes. Pardon? Yes. Okay. Alman B.

Yeah. I just want to make a a statement on this as I did at CO. This is a a special situation. Um this is a service area for a uh HOA or actually a toa town home owners association. Uh normally I would of course speak to them about this. However, at the time they have no board members. Um, so although I represent uh those people, they right now do not represent themselves. So to vote for a special service area going on all of their residents uh because we have a special situation where they are going to need to replace a fence which is going to be extremely expensive. Um, I would be voting no on this, but since they do not have any board members, um, I'm going to, uh, vote yes. However, in the upcoming year, we're going to be working with staff to, uh, possibly remove part of this. Uh the fence is

borders the railroad tracks owned by CN Railroad. And originally this never should have been in the SSA. This should have been uh some type of joint uh entity with the CN Railroad. The CN Railroad actually damaged the fence. They're the one who caused the damage to the fence. Uh but the SSA is going to have to uh they're responsible for it. So, uh, we'll have to work that out in the end over this year, but we will, uh, go ahead and pass this SSA in the meantime and hope that they can get some board members.

Sure. And, uh, we are we were working with our previous lobbyists with CN and and when we bring our new lobbyists on board, we'll re-engage them on the same topic as well to try and get them to cover some of the cost. Um, any other questions on this agenda item, comments? Is there a motion to approve? So move. Motion by Alderman Franco. Second. Second by Alderman Bug. Are there any other questions or discussions? There being none, I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiacos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes. Zero.

Motion carries. This ordinance is adopted. I'll ask clerk please read the next agenda item. 2550874 an ordinance authorizing and providing for the abatement of general obligation bond tax levies 2025 tax levy extension. So move been a motion made by alderman Franco. Are there any or second? Second by alderman civil. Any questions or discussions on this agenda item? A alder woman

I just wanted to um ask u if they can give us some uh overview about the library issues. anything specifically or why don't I ask Stacy to come up? Yeah, we we did I think talk a little bit about the history on the library. Are there any specific issues that you wanted or just an overview of of of how this abatement affects and why it's here? Okay. Yes.

Stacy Peterson, chief financial officer. Um so in relation to the abatement um this is for the 2025 tax levy extension. Um again when we issue general obligation bonds uh we're required to automatically impose tax levies um to uh make the principal and interest payments. Um and then this abatement process is uh the process that we do to uh abate the full amount of the principal and interest for next year um up to a certain dollar amount. Um and we are actually going to um abate 14 million um95,999 and 86. Um the library bonds uh when they were part of the city as a component unit um we the city issued those bonds. They are the city's bonds. Then the library became its own district. So they would actually um have to now levy for those bonds. Um they are our bonds as so we abate them on ours and then they pay us to pay the principal and interest and we have that in the um budget as well. That that answer your question. It provides a little bit of history for some of the newer alderman too about that. Any other questions on the agenda item before the council? Then a motion in a second. I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. Thank you, Stacy.

Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Fade, yes. Larson, yes. White. Yes. 12. Yes. Zero. No. Motion carries. This ordinance is adopted. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business. 25875. An ordinance levying taxes for the city of Aurora for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Is there a motion to approve this agenda item? So moved.

Motion. Motion made by Alderman Seville, the second by Alderman Franco. Um, any questions or discussion? I know we had a presentation at CO Alman Pug, I don't want to dictate uh the order of things. Normally uh we would take the budget question first before we levy the taxes. So uh just in the order here in the agenda it is the other way around

and that's just the order in which they were input into the system. Yeah I don't think there's anything I understand I would make a motion that we hold this for till the a half hour. [laughter] I I was just going to ask, do you want to do you want to make a motion to Yeah, just to move it down till after the budget. Well, there's been a a motion and a second on on this item. Uh I repealed my motion

that Well, there's that's the main motion. So, they can um you can move to postponed it to the end of unfinished business if you'd like or after what is it? 25 um 946 9. What am I No, the annual budget 946 946 is the budget. Okay. She Well, she's adding the one that that Alderman Nunes added to the the budget. So, okay. Or withdrew from the the consent agenda. So, 0945 25 0945. So, do you want to No, it's

so moved to move it to the end. 095 0954. Sorry. So I thought this I thought this let me go was next week. So So the the motion is to move the um the levy item 873 I'm sorry 87 five to the end of unfinished business. Correct. Yes. Okay. Is there a second? Second Alderman Mesiako. So there's a motion and a second uh to move agenda item 25 0875 to the end of unfinished business.

Yes. Any further questions or discussions on this amendment to the motion? I have a question. Alman, what are we voting on on the 16th? Yeah, that's we're voting this on the 16th. So both items are on the agenda today for tonight. for tonight. So then it would not be on the the agenda for the 16th if approved. I think the 16th is built into the schedule as a just in case. A worst case scenario.

A worst case scenario. We wanted to make sure that there was breathing room so Stacy was not having a panic attack. [laughter] No, I think I think it was it was breathing room. So, so on the 16th, what was planned was if if these are not finished tonight, then we have one more date before we hit Christmas. Okay. Basically, clarification. That's also going to be a long night because we're going to cow and then council as well. Yeah, because because of Christmas. That's okay. Any any other questions on

and secondary reason for doing this? One of our counties got into a little bit of uh snafu when they passed one and did not pass the other and uh they had to do a lot of scrambling to rectify that. So it's it's necessary to do them consider them in in the correct order. Okay. Any other questions on Alderman Bog's amendment? There being none, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role on the amendment. Ferrero, yes. Garza, yes. Messiakos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benueos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bait, yes. Larson, yes.

White, yes. 12, yes. Zero, no.

Okay. Agenda item 25875 will be entertained at the end of the unfinished business. I'll ask clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business. 25931, an ordinance establishing a conditional use plan development, approving the Orchards Crossing plan description and amending chapter 49 of the code of ordinances by modifying the zoning map attached thereto an underlying zoning of R4A 2 family dwelling district, B2 general retail district and OS1 conservation open space and drainage district for the property located at the northeast corner of Sullivan Road in North Orchard Road.

Uh, is there a motion? Go ahead. Got a presentation from staff.

Sorry, mayor. Yes, Jill Morgan, um, senior planner. I just wanted to briefly summarize where we stand at this point on the petition and also note one recent change. Um so as you recall uh planning commission re removal recommended approval of the plan description as presented by the petitioner which include allowing the gas station as a permitted use. Uh the building zone economic development committee recommended the same approval of the gas station as a permitted use with a condition that the developer install a minimum of two EV parking spaces within the commercial development. That condition does actually still need to be uh added to the ordinance. staff did fail to add that condition. So, I will work with the city clerk to make sure that it's added into the ordinance. Um, just recently, the your plan description has been updated at the request of the petitioner. Uh, they have uh uh requested um that we include an exhibit C in the plan description. This exhibit C is a declaration of demolition covenant to be recorded and submitted to the city prior to sorry uh this uh declaration of demolition covenant will be recorded and submitted to the city prior to the issuance of the building permit for the gas station. Uh this demolition covenant includes that if the gas station ever goes away that they the developer will remove the fuel canopies, underground storage tanks, the fuel pumps, etc. and restore the site as well. If the convenience store ever becomes um uh no longer being used as a convenience store, it will also be removed and there are timelines within that uh covenants. And this uh the this is at the press of the petitioner as hearing the concerns from the committee of adult meeting and the petitioner is here if there's any questions for them as well.

Question. Uh question alman Franco. So, we did a gas station on Eola Road about seven months ago. Yes. The staff is telling us that this particular one you're basically saying we don't think a gas station is appropriate based on a 2019 sustainable study ordinance. Is that correct? Correct. One of the right so 2019 why wasn't that brought up when we did the last gas station? I never heard anything about that against that. So, I'm I'm questioning why now but not seven months ago with an ordinance that's six years old. So, if anybody could explain that, I'd like to know that because I just don't want to get into this cherry-picking type of thing. I want to make sure everything's consistent. So, I just want to know if there's a reason for that.

Uh John Curley, chief development services officer. Thanks for the question. Uh we um in the prior uh uh gas station petition um I believe you're correct that this did not come up and it did come up this time. Um we are trying to work with our sustainable uh uh sustainability uh committee and it was brought to our attention from the sustainability committee that we're not meeting some of the goals and um uh that have been adopted by council and uh we chose to highlight them now when we had the opportunity.

All right. Uh and then also uh Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion because I'm I have a concern right now that there's people are trying to stop this project from going forward. This is a timecritical type of project. They have to sign the contract with Toyota. So, I would like to make a motions to suspend the rules. So, this has to be decided tonight and it can't be held and pushed back because we really don't have that flexibility going forward. So, I'd like to make a motion that we do that in What rules are you wanting to suspend there? Well, I'm I'm going to ask legal on that. [clears throat] That's why we have legal. Can I do that? Can I make a motion to suspend the whole process so we vote on this tonight being that it's time critical?

It's my understanding that you can make a motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry about that. Thank you. It's my understanding that you can make a motion to suspend the rules um which would um eliminate the with a twothirds majority. It would eliminate the council's right or the the members right to postpone the item because it's a it's a motion to suspend existing rules. Okay. Um on a twothirds Okay. majority. Are there any members of the council? I'll second. Intending to hold that. Second. Is anybody intending to hold it?

Apparently, this is assures us and it doesn't. If we don't, there's a motion if we don't need the motion. By alderman Franco suspend the rules. Second by alderman barero eight. Any comments or questions on the motion? Yes. Alman Bud. Yes. Uh although I trust my colleague, I I would want to hear that from the petitioner that when he has to sign this contract by I mean, let's put it on the record. I told you this last time.

Jeremy Foreman, GTZ Properties. Uh I believe that our contract expires in two or three weeks from now. About three weeks from now. We still need to put our capital stack together, get documents with title and have the closing. So, we're cutting it pretty close. And I'd love to see her tonight. So, basically January 1ish, December something. Oh, December. Okay. Before January 1. Before January, yes, we have to close this month with the holidays and closing documents and everything else. It's cutting it close. And we won't be here then. I hopefully we won't need to. No, no, we will not be here. [laughter] So,

I can appreciate that. I'll ask uh and and I'll ask Mr. Curley or somebody from development services. I don't see Dave Debo, but uh if if Toyota doesn't sell to this developer, presumably Toyota would put it out for another developer to bring a different proposal before the city. Is that the normal process? Have there been any other uh developers interested in this property?

Uh not recently. Uh there was one prior to this developer, but that goes back um more than a couple years. They they've been working on they they've been working with us for better than a year and a half. So it's been it's been more than two years where someone shows some interest. Okay. Any other questions or comments from the council messakos? Do we have a questions on the resolution or the motion? Well, there's a motion put forward by Alderman Franco, seconded by Alman Barrero.

All right. I just have a question for staff. Uh reaffirmation since we're doing it. Is it still staff's position that this is not the highest and best use to have a gas station? My understanding is you're for the development, not per se the gas station. And it's not the best and highest use. That was that was clearcut last minute. The CO Um yes we um that was staff's uh uh staff's uh opinion on the matter. We are more comfortable with that conditions that have been added. Um I mean we still in the end um think another use might be might be better than a gas station.

All right. So the answer is yes. Your your your response is it's not the best and highest use. that that is a position we've taken and are still taking uh that uh the u we're trying to we're trying to strike a balance between economic development goals and the sustainable the sustainability goals. Um changing the zoning here from a warehouse underlying zoning to permit uh everything else that's being asked for and was presented uh is entirely being supported by staff. But the gas station itself uh we we still are not supporting because because of the sustainable uh goals that come from our plan that your group has, you know, a former a former city council has adopted and has been supported by a committee.

Okay. So, I remember when I came in about 12 years ago, [clears throat] there was a plan for a gas station on Kirk uh just north of 88 on the west side corner. I believe it's Moli and didn't understand uh quite why initially why uh there was an interest not to move forward with it. U lo and behold uh 10 years later, we have a casino being built on that lot. part of the casinos on that lot. So, uh I respect your your thoughts and your decisions. Uh we minus the four new alder persons that are here as of this last uh election, uh we rarely we typically praise the high caliber and high performing team we have and I am in support of our staff's recommendation.

Okay. So, the the there's been a motion in a second. I'm just going to bring this to the the motion to uh suspend the rules. Let's focus on that. Um first quick question for legal. There was a motion in a second I believe on the uh agenda item itself. Does that take precedent over the motion to suspend the rules? I don't. There was none. Okay. Okay. Excellent. So then so Alderman Franco's motion is the only motion on the table. Uh, if there's no further questions on on his initiative to suspend a rules, I'll ask the clerk to please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, no. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville,

yes. Benos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 11, yes. One, no. Okay. Motion carries. So, the good news is the budget will also not be going back to committee. Um, next I'll I'll ask the clerk to We've already read the agenda item. Is there a motion in a second on agenda item 25931? I'd like to make a motion on that agenda item. I believe that the clerk did and staff came forward. Yeah, they they read the motion. [clears throat]

They read it. I think I think the confusion stems from your statement that the budget won't go back to committee. Sorry. I think moved or voted real quick. Just I think I mis misunderstood what the motion was real quick. So that was on the levy, correct? That was the It was a motion to suspend the rules um to make sure that this agenda item can't be pushed back to committee. Gotcha. No, that was that was specific to that motion is specific to one item to the 931. I mean, I don't think anybody wants to push back. I don't think anybody specified that, but

it it I think it's actually in the it's actually in the ordinance itself is that one specific item when you make that motion because I've done that before. It's not for the day. It's for the specific item that you're talking about, which would have been item number 2593 931. 31. Yes. The first time you used that, you suspended it for the day at the beginning of the meeting. Absolutely not. I did not. I don't care what happened in the past. I did it for this particular one. You want me to do it again, I will. But it seemed pretty common sensical that that was exactly what I did. Okay. We have uh agenda item 2500931 uh has been read. Is there a motion to approve agenda item 2550931? So move. Motion made by Alderman Franco.

Second. Second by Alderman White. Any questions or discussions on this agenda item? Yes. Alderwoman Smith. Yes. Um so I had asked some questions about the transformation fund and was sent some information. We're talking about the the gas station development. Oh, we're at the gas station. We have a presentation. We have a presentation coming forward on the Yes. Yes. No wonder I'm confused. We're still in the gas station. That's fine. We we have a presentation coming on transformation fund on uh AFD and a couple other items for the budget. This is why I was confused.

Okay. All right. So, agenda item 2550931, an ordinance establishing conditional use plan development approving the Orchard Road crossing plan description amending chapter 49 of the code ordinances city of Aurora by modifying the zoning map attached here to underlying zoning of R4 alpha two family dwelling district B2 general retail district and OS1 conservation open space drainage district for the property located at the northeast corner of Sullivan Road and North Orchard Road. A motion was made by Alderman Franco, second by Alderman White. Are there any questions on agenda item 25931?

All the minutes. Can I ask attorney John Philip Chuck to step forward? And you sent me some information uh John regarding the history of of this quick trip vendor uh for with regards to their contributions to local not for profofits and like that issue came up uh at one of our meetings and I would just like you uh to address what your reply was to me when I inquired about it further.

Yes, I I did bring additional packets uh Alderman Seville if the council wants to take time to read them. The bottom line is is that you may have heard of the national safe place uh and how uh various organizations uh participate in this and uh the quickrip organization has been a part of this for over 30 years now. What it basically amounts to is these signs are placed uh at the the location. They'll be at the station and anyone that fears that maybe someone's following them, you know, we're talking about this, you know, issue of uh the harming children, etc., etc. But anyone that comes to the station, there is trained staff there, safe room available where they can be protected. And then the staff again through the training through this program uh is able to call authorities and then the authorities would come in and address whatever issues might be necessary whether it be the police whether it be a shelter but it's it's not just children it goes even beyond children. So this is something that this company has participated in for over 30 years cuz someone did mention the fact that uh well gee do these kinds of uses uh attract uh people who would be taking advantage of of of of individuals and and the answer is they are very well trained on handling these kinds of matters. They're equipped for it. So if if you feel you'd like all of the council members to receive them I could pass one out for you. Well, I think it would be helpful. Yes. If you may, if you don't mind.

Would that be okay, Mayor? I If you can give it to the uh police officer, that'd be great. I appreciate it. Thank you. No further Two brothers had a a sign that said no guns on the door also. All right. Any other questions or uh comments on this agenda item? Sure. Alwoman Garza. Yes. I want to ask uh Jan Kurley um now you're saying so this you feel like is not appropriated this length for guest station you guys never mentioned this in BC never so now you change it the [clears throat] the what when you do the presentation in BC correct you guys don't say that

they're not appropriated for guest stationation well So they changed your mind because you guys thinking going to be only a guest station or because you don't have the whole presentation with the retail or restaurants or drive-thrus in there. So why why did they not mention that NBC?

No, actually staff's position has been the same the whole time. Um it is it is a confusing matter because we're um uh we're accepting their proposal but pre but with the exception of precluding the gas station is the way that is the way that staff has presented this uh both at plan commission and at BE and cow. So, we have taken the same position through all of the discussions. Admittedly, a little confusing because we are we do want to change the underlying zoning of the parcel uh to improve it from what it currently is, which could be a warehouse. Um, and it's it's positioned for something that should be much better than a warehouse. So, uh that's that's why we would like to see the underlying zoning change.

Okay. Yeah. because I understand they have so long time with uh with you guys first and then finally they presented to us and that's what I remember so you never mentioned that uh well that is the argu that is the position that we've taken through all the three meetings okay thank you John thank you alderman any other qu alone now that I've caught up with where we are [laughter] um exact same gas station exact same owner seven months ago you guys were 100% in support of it.

I I follow what you're saying, but I'm not buying it. So, you know, you don't have to answer it. Um, but you know, you may be in a hard position, but you also have to know you're putting us in a very difficult position as well. So, um, we understand what's going on. Um, but seven months ago, exact same guy, exact same gas station. Everybody in your department was on board with it. That's all I have to say. Any other comments or questions? Alderman Burough?

Yes, I have a follow-up question. Um last week there was a a lot of information given out and uh some numbers regarding revenues from the Quick Trip and uh the fact that uh the development um will not go forward without without Quick Trip. They are they are on front funding or paying for the infrastructure that's needed to to develop and subdivide and to attract these other other businesses.

Yes, as it was said that there we're not seeking any city funds, no funding by the city. It's all private investment funds and we um have Quicktrip who is willing to frontf fund the improvements like [clears throat] the uh access to Orchard Road and the internal roads and getting this in a position so that we can get besides the gas station all the other users that that we want to put in this center. As I reported the last time, uh besides a onetime $1 and a half million dollars to the city in tap fees and permit fees, there will be an annual income to the city of $3.1 million in sales taxes and property taxes from this development at buildout. Not not immediately. But if you say, well, immediately what would it be? Well, let's say Quick Trip does go first. Okay, Quick Trip alone, $750,000 a year in sales taxes for fuel and merchandise from this this store. So otherwise, it's a corn field. That's what it's been. And the city has been working with Toyota Motor Sales to not proceed to sell this to a warehouse that uh we would work with them and we have been working with them. And now we're to this point and we're got to close because they're saying, "Hey, you know, we got to do something or move on." And so that's why I I wanted to try to make everyone understand exactly what's at stake here. Uh I I know, you know, sustainability is important and everything, but I don't know that that much has been done about it. And quite frankly, you know, you're supposed to be working with your neighboring properties and all of this, but I didn't hear the city of Aurora say anything with regard to the gas and wash up on Route 31 in North Aurora that just happened. Where was the sustainability argument that, well, you shouldn't put a station there. You're going to affect all of us, all of our air, everything else. But nothing

was said. So, it's just recently that we were told no more gas stations and we're not putting a gas station here. And then we said because of sustainability, it doesn't make sense to us. We would appreciate your supporting the recommendation of the planning commission um the Bezy uh EA committee and approve this ordinance to this evening. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Alderman Larson.

Thank you. Uh yeah, I think that the the current zoning uh allowing a warehouse or a data center is uh I I'm not in favor of a data center or warehouse going in there. Um there are a lot already and I don't think we need any more. So I think this is definitely better use than uh that especially a data center given um what's going on around the country. Uh that being said um I've heard people on both sides uh regarding the gas station. Um, I think getting commercial tax dollars in there would be good. Um, I agree with city staff that I would like to see this go forward without a gas station. Uh, so that's my position on this.

Any other questions or comments from the council, Alderman White?

Yes. So, after following our meeting last week, I reached out to our director of sustainability, Allison Lindberg, and um, just to get additional context on the 2019 sustain sustainability plan. Um and uh she really briefed me on it and then from there uh she organized a meeting with u with Mr. Foreman and uh and others and staff and had a a really in my opinion robust discussion on uh what sustainability looks like when it's paired with economic development. And from my assessment, it seems as though um Mr. foreman is open to exploring what it looks like to include sustainability in the development. Now, I know that a gas station may have challenges in aligning with the sustainability plan. However, that's just one piece of the entire development. And I think if we can move forward with someone that is open to exploring what sustainability looks like in this development, u that's a better option than u not moving forward. And then we're really up to choice or what it's up to chance as to who the next developer will be. They may be in favor, they may not be. So considering it's warehouse data center, for me that's a no. Or somebody that's moving with development uh with the gas station uh but open to uh seeing exploring what sustainability looks like on that development. I'd be in favor of this.

Any other questions or comments? Okay. Hearing none, I'll ask the clerk please call the role. Barrero, yes. Garza, yes. Masakos, no. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, no. White, yes. Ten, yes. Two, no. Motion carries. This ordinance is approved. I'll ask the clerk to please read the next item under unfinished business.

Correct. The budget and then we'll go to the the last piece under yours. 25946 an ordinance adopting an annual budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2026 and ending December 31, 2026 in lie of passage of an appropriation ordinance. So move. There's been a motion made by Alderman Seville. Is there a second? Second.

Second by Alderman Larson. Uh any questions, comments, additional motions. Um I know we have some presentations to answer questions uh that alderman have presented. First of all, is there is there a need for an overview? I'm here. My name is Greenwell. I'm actually here today to see what I can have done about uh resources being brought to the house.

Sir, um I'll tell you what I'll do. The uh public comment uh period's over. You did sign up for public comment. I'm going to ask somebody from staff, uh Shannon Nick, if you could please meet with this gentleman to talk about his concerns. Thank you. not worthy to speak at a prop. Mr. Thompson, I'll explain the explain the rules.

Okay. So, there's been a motion in a second. I'm sure there's going to be plenty of discussion and motions on this. Um, but for a brief overview, does anybody need to see the overall presentation again? Okay. Um, I know that there was a question on um, fire department. Why don't we go with that first for Alderman Barrero? Ask Mr. Nickel to come up.

Good evening, Kevin. Chief. Okay. Pardon? Can I just make a brief comment? Sure. Go ahead. This is much This presentation is much better than that those handwritten notes I saw last week.

Well, okay. Uh we're going to get um if if we could get the presentation up on a screen. [snorts] I brought all the handwritten notes in case you want detail. [clears throat] John, do we get a clicker to advance the slides? Okay. Uh as discussed uh last week at uh CO, uh city council was looking for more information um in data regarding the 2026 budget. Uh tonight we'll be presenting all the major changes that were made uh what it means for our response ISO rating. Uh we will also discuss our operations and the potential impact that the changes could have on our community. Uh in addition, what we are going to do is uh what what we're going to do to manage that risk. Um and then obviously answer any questions that you may have. If you want to take a look here at uh the expenditures of uh 2025 to 2026, uh you do see a budget increase of 1.5%. Um that was after our total decrements of 2,69,482. Uh the reason why that number goes up is because uh budgeting for um possible wage increases. Uh there is current

negotiations going on with Aurora firefighters local 99 and the city currently. Next we're going to get into our major changes. Uh elimination of two EMA specialists. Uh unfortunately we lost uh two of the specialists. Um uh we did have one uh resignation of one of the staff members and one to the uh VRF. Uh those two uh specialist positions will not be uh filled in 2026. Fire prevention um which is also under the fire department uh did not have any staffing reductions. Uh however they did have reductions in line items. Uh we had a reduction of 18 firefighters through attrition. Uh we're down currently eight of those 18 uh since the VRF. Um those members would be coming from our roving personnel. Uh that would be six per shift. We have three shifts. Uh that roving personnel uh usually covers uh various types of PTO for the firefighters assigned to spe uh specific apparatus. We also have elimination of three battalion chief positions by attrition. Um uh that BC unit is designated as EMS1. Uh that is a battalion chief vehicle. It's the third battalion chief uh on duty on the shift. There will now be two. Um we'll discuss that uh later. Um also training officer. Uh there was an elimination of training officer that that was a 40-hour position uh staff position uh responsible for coordinating departmentwide training and uh our academy.

Also have the elimination of our cadet program. Um sadly we lost our eight uh cadetses. uh they were instrumental in our recruitment efforts uh in bridging the gap uh from high school students to 21 years old, which is the age you have to be to um be a sworn firefighter. Uh they will be greatly missed. Hopefully get that back in the future here. Um anticipated brownouts of a truck and engine. Um we could get into uh more detail with that uh later. Um, we were able to make promotions of a captain, two lieutenants, and a senior medic uh to staff engine 13, which is going to be going into service um a month from now um to get station uh 13 up and ready. Uh that's going that was made out of our existing manpower. I'm now going to pass it along to Assistant Chief Kaufman uh so he can speak a little more in detail about our operations and our response plan.

Thanks, Chief. Uh Assistant Chief Mike Kaufman here. I think it's uh very important to understand as we're talking about going through changes such as these, um we have to have the alderman in the community understand the meaning of the impact of these operational changes. So that's kind of what I'm going to go into a little bit is more of our operations. So to understand that completely, you got to understand we have nine engine companies in the city of Aurora distributed with strategically without the city. We're going to have our 10th go into service on the first of the year or shortly thereafter. That's going to be engine 13. Uh when you talk about engine companies, we have three firefighters on every engine company. At least one of those engines has an ALS firefighter, a paramedic, which makes it an ALS engine. when they are operating a structure fire, you have to understand what their roles are at this structure fire. You have one officer on that vehicle. You have a driver of that vehicle. That driver of that vehicle is responsible for running the pump, getting the water to the other two guys. The fire engine's job is to put the fire out. Plain and simple. That's their role at this because every time we put the fire out, things start to get better. Um the initial fire attack, obviously, their big responsibility. water supply is a responsibility of that second engine that shows up at the uh at the response. They're also a quick response vehicle when it comes to medical emergencies, especially in the capacity when there's already an ambulance out on the street in that area. So, if medic one's out, we get a second call downtown. Engine one goes on that call for that quick response and the closest medic unit after that. that really gets us a good response to our citizens by having these as many engine companies as we do running. Um they respond to all major medical calls where we need personnel codes, shootings, stabbings. Um that kind of thing is always personnel heavy. Engine company is always on those kind of calls. They respond to extrications, lots of other service calls as well um within their repertoire.

They work handinhand with the truck company when it comes to a structure fire. Ultimately, in a perfect world, the engine company and the truck company show up at approximately the same time, the truck right behind the engine, so they can strategically work to fight the fire. When we're talking about truck companies in the city, we're talking about having four of those. All right. We have them strategically placed. The fourth one went in service last year. That was truck 14. Um there's three firefighters on a truck company, one officer, two privates to do the job that they need to do. They have some of the most important responsibilities at the fire. When they pull up, they're forcible entry crew. Their job is to get the door open, uh, manage any gates we might have, any issues about getting into that structure to get our job done so the hose line can be deployed by the engine company. Their number one responsibility is search and rescue, saving people, victims that in their houses. Okay, that is the number one role of the fire department, life safety, just in general. Um, other things they do at a at a fire call, number one would be ventilation. Ventilation makes everything better at a fire. When we can open up windows at the right time, we can lift the atmosphere. We can make it safer for our crews to work and we can make we can enhance the survivability of potential victims within that structure. Truck companies also run a number of rescue calls. It's a specialized vehicle with specialized tools, extrication, vehicle accidents, uh machinery entrapments, elevator rescue calls. They go on a lot of other service calls as well. So, we keep that in mind when we talk about browning out vehicles. These are the kind of responsibilities these individuals have at certain calls. As we move on, battalion chiefs, we know we're going to lose three battalion chiefs next year. What's their responsibility? Well, their operational leadership on the scene. They're the guys who make the calls. What we're doing when we pull up on the scene, they're responsible for

the safety of those firefighters on the scene. Typically, in a initial structure fire response, we get two battalion chiefs responding to that structure fire. When it's upgraded to a second alarm, which is a working fire that's more dangerous situation, we get that third battalion chief in the city to respond. So, they can use utilize uh their energy. One might be the incident commander, other one might be in charge of firefighter safety. Another one might be on the other side of the house. So we get 360 view. They work in tandem on these responsibilities. They have supervision and personnel management responsibilities as well as administrative duties when they're not responding. [clears throat] As I advance, I want to make sure I I say that I'm not skipping ambulances because it's not important. It's just unaffected with any of these changes. The ambulances, we're going to still have 10 in the city. they will run as uh as appropriate as they are currently. As we look at this map, this is our current truck coverage map. In the upper leftand corner, those are the placement of our current four truck companies in the city. If you look at the bottom right corner, that's a potential brownout situation that we have had discussion with uh with the mayor's office about

except that the the top one there isn't open yet. That fire station isn't open yet. Truck 14 is not in service. Well, it's in service, but it's not up there. That's correct, mayor. That's where the plan is.

Yes, that's correct. So, that truck company is currently at station 9. So, it's a little south and southwest of there, but at the first of the year when station 13 opens, that is where that truck company will be. It'll be in that northeastern quadrant to protect that area of the city. So, when we talk about browning out, um there's a few factors involved. Okay? So, if we if we did end up browning out a truck, and I'll show you some statistics later on in the presentation, it would most likely have to be truck 14. Um, that would kind of expose some of the area as you can see on the on the bottom map. Um, to protect some of the area, we would take our truck six, which is our far east side truck, and scoot it a little to the west and probably run it out of station 9 so we get a little more coverage out of that three truck position. As we advance on the slides, this is the engine company lay layouts. We have current engine companies in the city. We have 10, we will have 10 first of the year. Uh same thing that the mayor just said, uh that 13 engine 13 will be uh going into service uh just after the first of the year up at the new station at 1701 built. Uh when we have that situation, that's what the response will be in the upper leftand corner. Uh as you look at the lower right hand corner, this is a potential brownout situation. um that would be indicative of a brown out of engine number nine in this picture. Um I will show you the statistics and why truck 14 and engine 9 were the vehicles we ended up pointing towards in this situation. If you look at the next slide, this is our structure fire responses. I put together the the statistics from 2023 through 2025. This is three years of structure fires within the city of Aurora. You can view them on the map on the left as well as the heat map down on the right hand side. If you notice the upper northern quadrant, north northeastern quadrant a little

less active for fire response. [clears throat] As I move forward to uh call volume per unit, we analyzed all the units and what our call volume was in 2024. Truck 14, although it went in service in 2024, we took the last we took 12 months of the calls and grouped this together. So they weren't in service for the entirety of 24, but we did it from the month they went in to 12 months after. So we got accurate statistics on these matters.

I'm going to interrupt you again again. So in the engines also just explain to the council. I think 70% of the calls I was going to bring this up earlier. 70% of the responses from engines are actually EMS calls. They're basically acting as an ambulance. Correct. There's a high percentage of of correct uh engine calls that are being run for EMS. Okay. Thank you.

Yep. Uh so as I was saying, this just kind of gives us a uh feedback of where are we are with unit responses um and a better idea of where if we needed to do a potential brown out, where we might go as we advance forward. This is the total call volume of 23 and 25. Uh what we get out of this is obviously our our highest numbers uh seem to pop in January. We fall for a couple months and then we historically balloon during the the months uh during the summer starts from May through about August where we get our highest call volume. As we move on to the next slide, um this is a truck response by month volume. So you can see kind of the same thing, higher in January, peaks up in the middle of the summer months and then scoots down a little bit. October kind of perks up a little bit. people turn their furnaces on. They run a few uh a lot of carbon monoxide calls. Uh when that occurs, the reason the reason we have this up here, I think if we had to go to a brownout situation, ultimately we would love to avoid doing it at peak months. Okay? And our peak responses are in the middle of summer um for not only total call volume, but truck call volume as well. So that's the reason uh we're showing all these to you as we move on. [clears throat] This is going to be response time. So these are the same maps you have the explanation for the rings. The rings are 3 mi in radius. Um when you talk about 3 miles in radius, your your response time per the NFPA standard 1710, uh our goal is to respond with a truck company in 6 minutes of travel time. Um, it's varied to what exact exactly you can get to in in terms of distance. It could be anywhere from 2 miles to 3

miles to make it in this 6 minute response time that we're trying to match. So, what the ring indicates is the very far edge of anything we could we could maybe get to in 6 minutes. Okay. And that's given most likely um like middle of the night, no traffic kind of situation because really to move 3 miles in 6 minutes, it's an average of 30 mph with the density of our city, the narrowness of the streets, weather, it's a challenge. So what I'm saying is these rings uh aren't totally perfect, but they give you an idea. Okay? And obviously we have a reflection of if we brown things out, everything outside this ring will definitely be response over 6 minutes. Okay? And our ultimate goal is to aim for 90% of our responses being at 6 minutes or less. That's our ultimate goal. That's our NFPA standards that we typically try to operate by as we go forward. This is the same sentiment towards engine companies. The 10 on the upper left hand side with circles only these are mile and a half responses. It's per NFPA. Again, NFPA standard is 4 minutes and that's approximately a mile and a half. So, that's what we're aiming to meet. When we pull engine 9 out, you can see the hole that we create. Um, I also am aware there's there is a larger hole on the newer map to the north of where engine 9's going to be, but we got to remember we're relocating engine 4 in about a year that will fill that gap. Just food for thought there. That's all. [sighs] [clears throat]

And I'm sorry I advanced my slide and I forgot to advance yours. So now you're seeing what I was talking about. I apologize. Please chime in if I do that again. All right. Mine's not tied into yours. I apologize. So, you're probably scratching your head, but you have might have it in front of you. So, so the first one looked at the trucks. The second one looked at the engines. Correct. This is the engine one 100%. Should we ever get there?

Correct. As we move forward, I'm going to talk a little bit about ISO scoring measures. ISO classifies fire departments all the way from one down to 10. We are fortunate enough to be an ISO class 2 department. Our score is 80.57. As you can see, we're we're on the border for two and three, but we are hanging on to a two. Uh currently, uh some standards that ISO uses to score um is for the truck company, like we just talked about, it's a 6 minute travel time to 90% of your calls. Typically, I have two and a half to three on there. It could be a little less than that. just depends on the the uh situation you're talking about driving to. Uh we typically have truck companies placed in areas like downtowns like we have here. Uh industrial warehouses, which is going to be kind of up where truck 14 is at. Um densely populated residential areas. We kind of cover all the above on those. Uh engine company standards are a little bit different. Like we said, it's four minutes travel time to 90% of the calls. Typically about a mile and a half is what we're talking about. Uh if properties do fall further than that mile and a half radius, then we have a tendency to lose points when it comes to scoring with the ISO. Uh our initial uh first full alarm is uh should we're shooting to make that response in 8 minutes or less for 90% of our responses. That includes all first doom alarm companies. So you're talking two engines, a truck, battalion chief, and a medic to like a a structure fire. You want them all to show up with 8 minutes of travel time. That is an NFPA standard as well. Uh, as we go on to insurance rates, I know Mr. Barrow was asking about insurance. Um, the insurance score is called a public uh, protection classification. It's the same thing as an ISO score. And like we said, one is the best, uh, 10 is the worst. Uh, the surveys typically occur every 5 years.

We had our last uh, ISO survey in 2020. I did reach out to ISO. They expect to be uh coming to Aurora in 2026. When we don't exactly know they typically give us a few weeks heads up of when they're coming in, but that's their uh that's their plan right now. Staying at ISO 2 has great impacts on insurance, right? Keeps the rates pretty much where they're at. Falling to an ISO 3 could raise rates. I'm not going to get into the it definitely will, it definitely won't. I'm not an insurance agent. I just want to give you the information which I'm hope I'm being clear on about how they grade us for ISO. Okay. They also take into effect sometimes as I talk to these ISO people um that it's not sometimes always the rating, but if you're talking about a big warehouse or something like that, the insurance company will take into effect uh the hydrants on the property, how far they are, what's the closest firehouse, what's the water supply, all that kind of stuff, and almost do their own ISO rating about the surrounding area to come across those insurance rates. [clears throat] As I move on, um, our fire department commitment in response to these challenges, um, we're going to do absolutely the best we can for the citizens of Aurora. Um, no matter what we're we're faced with, but, uh, we're going to fill daily personnel requirements with overtime, hopefully on a temporary basis. We don't want to extend it too long. Um, brownouts will be determined, uh, using our following metrics that I have there. uh it's going to be the attrition rate, obviously the overtime costs, uh response times, and uh data-driven analysis. And I'm going to show you on the next slide what we're talking about with the uh analysis of the data. Uh we'll obviously continue to prioritize our essential training even without our training officer, which we're going to lose uh in February. Um we're going to adjust deployment if necessary to maintain the best possible citywide coverage. Uh like we discussed, if we got to move a truck company a little bit to the west to uh meet the needs of our citizens, we'll do that. Uh

we're going to communicate the transparency as best as we uh possibly can. You want to advance the slide yet or not? Yep. I'm still talking, but Oh, sorry. I didn't [laughter] I thought you were moving into this. Sorry. Go.

No, that's okay. Um as we talked about before, uh man managing uh data analysis and measuring those uh metrics, we uh reach out. We have a company that is going to be able to set us up a dashboard uh that we can hopefully get started right at the first of the year. We can monitor our response times um see how uh we're going with that and if it comes to the changes that are necessary um and we need to do brownouts. We will continue to monitor those response times and those will I'm sure reflect um how we're hurting and and what areas we're hurting and uh if we're doing the citizens uh the good that we should be doing them um if the response times are slowing down. So I think that's what we're looking for with that being pretty transparent. Um, in closing, uh, while our department faces these, uh, significant challenges in the form of potential brownouts, um, budget constraints and the loss of firefighters, um, and leadership positions, our commitment, uh, to protecting this community is going to remain unwavered no matter what we end up doing. I think it's vital that our elected leaders, you guys, as well as the community, uh, understand the impact that these pressures have on response times, safety, and overall service. We will continue to make decisions to keep this community safe with the resources we have to work with. And I'd like to open um to questions as best I can.

So, real quick, do you mind flipping back to the ISO slide where they show how it measures their dashboard, so to speak? What would you like to see? The 87, our current rating, the one that has our current rating on it.

You got it. because I I think it's also important to look at um they they look at they look primarily at response times but they also look at emergency communication center points which uh after this rating in 2020 we've also improved our 911 call center uh we're getting the P25 radio system um I don't know if they'll look at the pervas system but that's certainly a communication improvement that's happened and additionally um we've added apparatus since this uh 2020 and we prior to the decrement added 50 new personnel over the last four years um which the decrement is 20 via attrition. So we have added apparatus personnel and we've added three new fire stations which should all help with the ISO rating but as as um assistant chief Kaufman pointed out there's no way to predict what the what the ISO rating people are going to say.

There isn't. Yeah, there's it's hard to predict and it's hard to say when exactly they'll show up. And I would assume they would have been here earlier. I'm assuming CO had a little bit to do with um the fact that that we're you know going to be a little bit uh lacking on on timing, but yeah, it's hard to say. And and then interim Chief Nickel, I think we had asked during their um the one of the many discussions how many two alarm fires we have um in the city. Did we ever get that solid number? Um I I know I see them whenever I we get an email. Kevin Nickel, uh deputy fire chief. Uh as far as how many two alarm uh fires? No, I didn't. Uh uh do we have it at any of those data points?

We could we could probably pull it out. I could pull it out of ESO and get those data points for you. Um two alarm fires, uh just off the top of my head would be three to four months perhaps going to going to a second alarm. A safe assumption. And I know you get some of the reports too on that. So, um I would that would be a safe assumption for me. Yeah. Three to four. And that'll change the way we act a little bit. Uh right. If we get a two alarm fire and we only have two battalion chiefs, um then we one of us has to respond from home, which will be a little bit of a delay. Um but that that's the way we would have to operate in that capacity. When when a second truck gets there, you'll be there one.

Yeah. Well, I hope so. [clears throat] Alderman Barrow questions. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to comment on the the two maps that showed the um the the effect of the brown with the brown outs of the Can we go down that um the engine company? You want to see the engine or the truck, Mr. Alderman? Both. Just wanted to come in on both. When Well, there's the there's the engine one right now.

Yeah. So when when that when that's taken out um you know affects W one and W 10 [clears throat and cough] and not not so much this one on W one but definitely W 10 and you can see that and then on the other one switch it you can definitely see all that on W one and W 10 north of the tollway and we got a lot of new construction going on up in that area. So that that is a concern. My question um with the ISO rating, we are very close to dropping to a three. Um so is is response time to these areas going to be taken into effect when into account when they go when they come back out to to do a survey? Um that's one question. And then the sec the second one, what is what is that impact to the community if we drop to a three to a three?

Sure. Uh the answer to your first question is yes. Response times are a factor with ISO scoring and ISO ratings. That is one of the factors they use is is your response times. Um they dig deep into that and uh they they give you scores based on if you're meeting uh the 1710 NFPA metrics that are posed that I uh presented here. Um what would it do to drop from a two to three? Uh insurance rates will go up. Plain and simple. any any

I mean I can't I hate to I'm not an insurance agent so I hate to speculate I I just was I'm just told that they directly correspond in one manner or another to your insurance rates. So and can you get back to that slide that shows where we're currently at? Is this the one you'd like to see? Yep. Okay. So, we're we're closer actually uh with 8057 we're on the cusp, but we're in between. It's also possible we'd go to a one. Yeah. I mean, it if one we're on the border of a three, so we're closer to 799. Not

not.

Yeah. So, it's it's a challenging thing to uh to predict, but what I can say is when you try to meet NFPA metrics and NFPA standards, the better job you do of meeting them, the better you score, and the better you score, the higher your class. And the higher your class, the lower your insurance rates. It's pretty well as simple as that. Um the mayor is saying we could be a class one. Could we someday be a class one? I I think absolutely. I mean, we've we've built fire stations. We've got vehicles in in good positions. Um we're on our way. Um but if we It's hard because if we have to brown out vehicles that we're not we're not going to be close to a to a class one to be honest with you.

Yep. I think it'll probably hover around two, but it's just as likely that we'll we've made a lot of other improvements was the point that I was making. So, you're you're going to pick up points on communication. you're going to pick up points on uh fire department coverage because of the new stations and the in the vehicles that were moving to there. So, the communication aspect is is it is coming, but the Harris radios are not they're not in service yet. So, that's we're not going to get any points there unless they're in service up and running when ISO comes here to do their rating schedule. That's just from the communication aspect. I I understand what you're saying with the other things though, [clears throat] Alman Barrow.

Yeah. So, so when they come out next year, um we won't see them again for four or five years or approximately is what they tell us is about every five years is when you get another survey. So, yes. Um they did uh say that you could call them back out and request that they do another survey. Um I suppose that is something uh the city could potentially do if they felt they were in a better position to raise their ISO rating. Absolutely. But yeah, every five years typically. Okay. Thank you, Alderman Masanos. Thank you, mayor. Question for you. Um, what level of trucks do we have eight years ago compared to today?

Eight years ago, what level of trucks? Yeah. Do we have the same same amount of trucks or do we we get more trucks over the eight years? No, we have we had less trucks. Eight years ago, we had we had three truck companies. Are you talking about truck companies? Are you talking about engine companies? Everything. Okay. We had three truck companies 8 years ago. Uh we had nine engine companies 8 years ago. We've I think we've had those for eight years. There's there's been um no new engine over the past eight years. Um engine 13 will be our 10th engine.

Okay. Um and you also brought up response times a few times on this on this uh slide you're showing us. Which bar would would um if at all would response times be reflected on? Response times is going to be in fire department points. Fire department points. Correct. Okay. And why is there a red bar there? 36 35.65 compared to 38.24. What does that mean there? Uh I I believe that is our peers overall score compared to our score. I know it doesn't show it at the bottom, but I do recall that's what it is. That's that's how you compare it to your peer departments. And where are we with compared to our peers there?

We are slightly lower than our peers. We're slightly lower than our peers. So again, I brought it up at committee level response times. And I'm not quite sure I understood the response uh to my question because our response times have increased. We went from 5.1 to was it 5 what was in the budget? 5.4 I believe. But anyway, it's it's still higher than it was eight years ago. So, what what is it we're not seeing in this in this graph and this presentation perhaps in regards to how that affects the score if at all? How response times reflects the score? Is that what you're saying?

Less trucks, a quicker response time eight years ago, what what's what's the difference now if at all for that bar? I would say if you're talking about response times, uh, call volume, call volume obviously goes up. We're responding to more calls. If we're on calls, coming from the hospital, coming from different calls, that's going to obviously affect, uh, your response time. We also have a buildup to our community. There's uh, more communities down south. Del Webb is a great example of that. That's a longer response. It's pretty exposed for us. So, that would also expect uh, influence response times.

All right. Because I saw also in that in one of your previous slides that your biggest concentration of of calls were in the older southeast part of town on the east side of the river on the fire on the fire slide where where they had the heat map, right? Oh, for the structure fires, right? Can you pull that up? Yeah, sure can. [clears throat]

Yeah. So, we're talking Yeah. You're talking east side of the river just uh right? Yeah. Inner east side. Yeah. That's that's a heavy concentration of of of fire concentration, which we've known that for a long time. Um, engine one, engine five, a couple of our busier structure fire engines, that's their uh that's their response area. That's that's pretty typical for what I would have guessed. I just thrown a dart in the map, you know. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Alderman Larson,

thank you. Uh, yeah, I have a question. So, our our last uh ISO scoring happened in 2020. Um, do we know, I guess, approximately what time of the year that happened and, um, what kind of effect that could have had on the score? Um, I'm not sure if there were staffing issues, uh, with everything that was going on in 2020. So, I don't know the time of year. I do know it went into effect um, January 1st of 2026 is when our new rating went into effect. Um, I don't have that offhand in front of me. Um, I'm happy to look into it for you if you'd like.

Okay. Yeah. I'm just wondering if uh that 80.57 since it's sort of it's just above the the cutoff. I'm wondering if if part of that was affected by everything that was going on in 2020, if it's maybe higher or lower than it would have been otherwise. Um, I don't know if call volume was any different um at that time as well with more people at home. Um, and I guess with the pandemic too, maybe more paramedic calls. Sure. It's a possibility. Alderman Franco. Oh, I'm sorry. No. Any otherwoman Bade?

Thank you, Mayor. Um, if you can go back to page seven and eight. of the presentation. Um, just like Alden Alderman Barrerero, I have concern about Ward 10 northeast corner. I think she wants to go to the engine coverage with the circles on the engines the numbers am I in? So, uh, Alderman, [clears throat] is this the one you want to see or do you want to see the engine? Okay, let's start with this one.

Sure. So um northeast corner of ward 10 and one uh both are very densely populated as well as uh industrial area heavy industrial area. Uh I'm really concerned that it's not um within six minutes of reach uh with the trucks as well as with the engine. uh especially if you go to the next page um again northeast corner industrial area and it is also skipping some of the densely residential area. So um with the new fire station on Eiola, why is this not covered?

Yeah. Is it because there is no truck at that station?

That's a good question. So, with with this map, what we're looking at right here, um, the new fire station uh is will be exactly where that engine 9 dot is. It's kind hard hard for me to point, but engine 4 is going to relocate. It's on 600 Michaels, and it is going to relocate over to Indian Trail and Farnsworth. That's going to be right next to the police station. When that engine company scoots over uh due northeast, that circle will slide due northeast and provide some better coverage into that uh northeast quadrant. Now, that far tip northeast quadrant, it'll still be exposed. And that's one of the reasons we we really needed another fire station up there is is to get a fire engine up there to get a truck company up there because we've known for a number of years that that's our that and the very southern quadrant southeast quadrant of the city are our most exposed fire areas. It takes us a long time to respond to those areas. So

fire and ambulance. [clears throat] Correct. Absolutely correct. Did that answer your question?

Uh how can we improve that? uh we can improve that by I mean when you look at the truck map here once when when truck 14 is at station 13 which is going to happen at the first of the year shortly thereafter that's going to be your truck map. So that's going to be a great improvement from the current truck response we have there because you can see the top one will be the way it is. The bottom one that's a potential brownout situation, right? We're back to where we started with the three truck companies. Okay. So, that's how we we alleviate it by just throwing more stations and and more companies in the proper areas. And that's what we did with uh station 13.

The other thing if you look at the the fire map too, you can also see the the heat map. Again, it uh it shows there's also very few a lot fewer incidents in those areas. Yeah, that's true. Fewer incidents um but larger uh response times. So, when we get an incident there, it takes a while for us like we talked about that full complement in 8 minutes. For us to get full compliments to um exposed areas like that, it it takes a long time, you know. Um, which is why it's important to have an initial company up there to get there as soon as we possibly can to start to knock it out before it gets too big. Alderwoman Smith. So, I think it's page eight.

The one that you had shown a little bit ago with the brownouts. Okay. I'm sorry. I can't see the page. Alwoman beige page the structure fire page. Is that correct that I'm looking at right now? Part of the circles. I thought it was page eight. Yeah. I don't have got this is slide eight right there. Right there seven. Okay.

So the bottom part. So this is where you asked the improvement. Um, so I'm kind of in between my W's kind of wrapped all around the um it it's interesting because these three circles down at the bottom are all so close but then all this the space around it is not covered. Is that just is that time obviously that's a time factor. It is. It's It's a It's a mileage. This is a based on mileage is what these circles are. So that's a mile and a half, which we anticipate trying to get a mile and a half in about 4 minutes. That's a pretty hefty goal as well. Like I said before, um that's a challenge in a densely populated area in a time of heavy traffic and and whenever weather is involved. So yeah, we position them as as best as we possibly can um to cover that area. And that being said, a lot of these fire stations have have been there for for a number of years. So we just kind of have to do the best we can to get the right vehicles in the right areas um to support our our mission and and

so is going to be right there along that dotted line and station 8 is right down the road. So correct. Correct. So why is that response time so why are they so close together? No, not why are they so close? Why is there a gap in this response time when when it's right on top of two fire stations? Okay. Are you looking at the bottom map right now? Yep. Okay. The if you look at the top left one that's you can see station 9, engine 9. The bottom one, station 9 is not is not on that one. Yeah, but I know approximately where it is. Right. All right, I see what you're saying. I guess I'm confused as to what gap exactly we're talking about.

The big long black line that starts at the top and goes all the way down to the bottom. That's That's what ward 10, little W seven, and a bunch of W eight. Okay. On the bottom map. Yes. That's a brownout situation. Yes. Yes. That would be covered if there was no brownout. So So my question is I get it. It's a brown out, but there's two fire stations right there because there's no engine at that station. That's the No engine at 9ine or 8. There is an engine at 9ine. There will be an engine at 9. Correct. Engine 9 is on Deal Road right now. It's moving to 500 North Eola. There will be an engine there.

Right there. Yes. Correct. Correct. It's It's Yes. It's It's on the top on the top map. It's the second dot. So that gets worse for you to the to the west. Yeah. Yeah. So well I mean this is obviously not good for those of us who that's our words. Okay. Now let me ask another question. Um because mine's not important anymore evidently. If well let's just look at uh cuz I know the answer to this but if you look at station one uh engine one it has enough coverage around it to cover it for but why did you choose engine 9 instead of engine one

uh because you would still have a coverage gap. It's more of a call volume and it's it's a it's a it's a it's more of a call volume and having an initial due engine downtown with the uh highrises. Um it's the response time, the reaction time to uh fires in say a stol building. Uh it takes a long time. We have to bring a lot of personnel. The quicker we get personnel in there, get to the top floors and get it knocked, uh the much better off that the the residents are going to be. Plus, EMS calls are a lot heavier in that in that area. There's no doubt about it. It's it's a heavy EMS area.

No. And then the other question I don't think that anybody's asked yet is what is our roughly our timeline. I know we've talked about this and you know it's going to be a monitoring process. Um sure. I mean I I it's going to be monitored. Um I I hope it never happens to be honest with you and no fire chief wants to sit up here and and try to explain this and and try to um um try to do do more with less. But at at the end of the game Yeah. that we we'll do what we can with what we have, but it is it's going to be a monitoring situation uh based on overtime from what I understand. Over overtime and a response software that you've got in place to get in place.

Sure. Yeah. And ultimately um we we don't really want to have to do that during the the middle of the summer as it showed in our uh presentation. That's the that's the high point for our call volume. So um that being said, we we'll do what we can with what we have. Thanks, Alderman Burrow. Is has is everybody else asked? I know I know both of you have spoken once. Go ahead. No, I just wanted to uh thank you for the information. This is very insightful. Uh this is the kind of information we've been asking for and it really helps us. So, thank you. Absolutely. Alderwoman Bade. Um Alderman Bug hasn't had a chance. Go ahead. Oh, go ahead.

Just had one uh question. Is Aurora Fire Department responsible for um being at any accidents on Butterfield? Oh, absolutely. Yep. That is our jurisdiction up on Butterfield. Again, that area will not be under coverage. Uh would be because there are so many accidents and I get reports from residents in that area that every now and then there is something happening. So, I wasn't sure if it's county or Sure. No, that's that's a Aurora Fire Department covers uh Butterfield Road. Yeah, we're aware that's a it's a Will the station 13 be covering Butterfield? Probably. Yeah. Yeah. So, the new station 13 will probably be covering that

east side, too. 13 is the one at the top of the map, the very top up there in W one. Yeah. So, it's going to be engine 13 and then truck for that'll be truck 14's territory as well up there. So, Alderman Bug.

Yeah. Thank you. I definitely appreciate the information. Everything we do up here as alderman, every decision we make impacts something else. So I went back and looked at some of our decisions last year. November we broke ground on a station. December we broke ground on a station. And in May, we approved a new station, three in six months. I went and looked at other cities because the economic impact of building three stations at the same time would be huge. And it is huge for this city. It's much of the reason we're sitting here with this dilemma today. I looked at not cities our size. I looked at the largest cities in the country, New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, and see if any of them had broke ground and were building three stations at the same time. I couldn't find one. I found no cities. LA was an asterk because they have a lot of LA County and they go all all over the place. So I didn't I didn't decipher LA County. So, the impact of our decisions last year that we were going to pay for three buildings at the same time was going to stress our budget greatly.

And we sit here today looking at basically paying for those three buildings instead of putting the money into manpower and equipment. I myself would rather put the money in manpower and equipment which you've been talking about today. But because of our decision last year and more importantly in May of this year, we are stressed. We're very stressed. A number of alderman sitting up here at that time made the statement that it would be very helpful on the budget of this city if we held off on that third project for a year. and the former council number of aldermen who had been voted out of their seats voted for that third project putting the stress on this body. So we cannot undo what was done. We're in this predicament. It's part of the reason we're here debating these things. But we have to understand and I ask you would you would have rather put the money in a building or in manpower and equipment. I told you what I feel, but I think you guys need to ask yourselves that question be because this body, a number of people in this body wanted to hold that because of this exact

reason because we'd rather put the money and manpower and equipment and not right away in that third building. We wanted to hold it for a while and thus we stand at this point part of the reason we asked all the departments to make decrements but this has a lot to do with it. So I want everyone to understand that just because you brought up the comparisons I I did hand out some of the the handwritten notes. My handwritten notes are all over these but these are other documents that we've received. the the last one, the last sheet looks at comparisons with Joliet uh with Peoria and others. If if you look at it, um Joliet has a similar volume. They have fewer people, slightly fewer. And um the real one that shocked me was um Poria that has much higher call volume um and and fewer staff. But then what I realized is they have taken their entire EMS service and and taken it into a privatized uh system, a non-union uh house without much training, just uh ambulances and and as we thought about how to address um you know the budget itself and and where to cut that was something that was completely off the table uh for me uh was was I think it would have called a near revolt. And uh secondly, we our EMS response is um already stressed as is that I don't want to go through all those changes and havoc. Um the other thing we initially talked about was uh keeping station 13 shuttered initially um and not putting any people in vehicle up there. And that's when we discussed

personnel and that we had actually budgeted and manned some of the vehicles that are planned to go up to station 13 in the previous years. So we have uh hired if if you look at the first sheet a number of people um over the years and increased the budget uh in the past to accommodate the change coming at 13. So what we ultimately wound up doing was the the path at at it was Chief McCabe and Deputy Chief Nickel at the time um recommendation to look at the the truck specifically to open station 13 um and also to avoid privatization. So I'm just giving some broad pictures of of how we came to this decision. Um, and then the choice to make it through attrition was and and through the VRF was one that I think everybody's pretty much followed to reduce the impact as long as possible.

Can I ask a question about the staffing comparisons? Sure. So, I'm looking [clears throat] at some of real quick as I just saw it. Population served in Aurora is 185,000. It's not 200,000. And if it's not if it's 185,000, why are we going to try to do the census again if we if we're going to capitulate to 185,000? this is making sense. So that number should be 200,000. I mean, if we're going to put numbers in here, they should be accurate. And if it's accurate 185, then we shouldn't bother doing the census. So I just want to make sure that when we put out numbers, they're accurate. The way to do that is just compare. I mean, some of these other communities could have been miscounted as well. I don't know the

Well, they could have been, but we know where we're at. So I just want to make sure we put out numbers. Let's try to be exact as we can because it doesn't it doesn't really make sense if we're trying to go do a census because we know we have 200,000 yet we're showing 185 and we don't believe that. So, I I just wanted to point that out. Yep. Yep. Is Is that a number that Why did you guys use that? Is that because that's what the NFPA will be looking at with the ISO rating? Will they be using the 185 or is what what are they going to use? I'm not exactly sure what he's looking at. I don't have that information in my hand.

I don't have it. It just shows our population 185,000. Believe we've always believed that we're in 2010. So, I just want to make sure we're number isolating. We want to make sure accurate and we believe that we have 200,000 people. So, we should stand by that number. I'm sorry. We should stand by the 200,000 number no matter what because that's what we believe. So, you know, but I know you don't know that yet, but that's just kind of what's in here. So, if we go forward, I want to make sure we have the numbers correct and what our belief is as opposed to, you know, somebody else's belief which we know is not true. Unless the NFPA is using Sure. using our census numbers, then we have to use what they're using. Well, yeah. I mean, if that if that's what the mandate is, I would I would imagine, right? I

I I don't know the answer to that. And you don't know the answer to that, right? Not okay. I'm just sharing the information that I had. So,

any other questions or comments? We do have a couple other presentations. Okay. Um, thank you. Uh, chief staff. This is to answer your question, Alderwoman Smith. And then we've got some aka good evening. Shannon Cameron, chief of staff. Um, uh, Alderwoman Smith had asked for a presentation on the transformation fund and specifically the e the community and economic development loan program. So I'm going to go through that this evening. Happy to answer any questions. So, history of the transformation fund. In June of 24, the city approved a development agreement with C1 Chicago, otherwise known as Cyrus 1, um, which required a reimbursement of $16 million for city investment in infrastructure improvements to the land that they have, um, had since the early 2000s. Um, the cities received those funds in July of 24 and created the transformation fund. Um the item was 240754 which proposed to use these funds for these oops sorry um these certain things 9 million for economic development 1 million for to be added to the historic preservation program 1 million to be added for facade replacement and 5 million um for to be given to invest Aurora to create a conglomerate that is now known as the Aurora Regional Economic IC alliance. I will say the first three items were not budgeted at all in 2025. Um and then you um those that were on the council at the time

approved 3 million although 5 million was proposed. Um the transformation fund revenues uh I have it in two slides revenues and expenditures. So um I just couldn't fit it all in one and make it legible. So um ex here is uh some understanding of course we had no beginning balance because it was new uh the original proceeds that came in from Cyrus 1 at 16 million is shown there none nothing was spent in 2024 um we went or sorry yes it was I um we had the three million that went to the alliance I'll go through expenditures next I promise so we were left with 13 million at the beginning of this year um I'll go we have investment income um we have $1 million as a hopeful um uh subsidy to come back to the city from the original money that we gave to the alliance. Um we have recently redistributed between the two the

to be clear that's not guaranteed at all.

Correct. Uh it is not guaranteed and I'll show you a plan for that if we do not get that million. Um but the um the million dollars if we can get it to come back um would be great and be helpful but um that is because we've redistributed uh [cough] so sorry um duties between the alliance and economic development. So um in 2024 we only our only expenditure was to the alliance. We had some uh redevelopment agreements. Thank you chief of staff. Sorry about that. Which was um 282,694 was paid out this year to what will be Vico at 7 South Broadway. I'm not touching it. I swear. I don't know what's going on. Um, look. Okay. Um, the remaining they have some things that um have to happen before the 544,400 is remainder is paid out, but that will be the end of that redevelopment agreement. um Wildflower, which is the restaurant um at the bottom of the terminal building at 2 North Broadway. We have a redevelopment agreement for that. Um this year 142,100 was paid out on that. Um it is uh the redevelop the developer is Urban Equities. We have 379 thou 37,900 um owed next year in that redevelopment agreement if all goes if all continues to be planned. Um, we bought uh several acres off of Builtshire Road for $5.3

million out of gaming tax. This reimbursed that. Um, we have a million dollars in historic preservation. The far majority of those dollars are encumbered, meaning it's already part of 24 and 25's um application process. they've already awarded some of that. Um it's just they have there's so much to produce in far as receipts and invoices. We haven't done that yet. Um they haven't um so money I think only [laughter] um $230,000 of that has actually been spent, but it currently is not showing in our dockets. So we're working on that. So this may adjust from that by 230,000. Um, but so I think what's left in there is a little over $100,000 left for another application. The revolving community and economic development lending program is at $6.5 million. It will reduce by 1 million if we do not get that repayment by the alliance to $5.5 million. The contractual services are for city planning um city uh strategic planning as well as economic development strategic planning at a total of $150,000. Um the revolving economic uh community and economic development lending program is uh what I'm going to talk about next. We also may use those funds as for strategic uh land acquisition for projects as well. Um we're going to cover these three things. I'm going to cough one more time. [cough and clears throat] Sorry. So, these three things um uh I'll cover and I'll and I'll try to hopefully get through this and certainly can answer any questions as there may be the economic development small business compliance loans, special service areas,

capital improvement loans, and CPACE and RPACE loans. So this economic development and small business compliance um this goes through talking with a lot of business owners with developers with people who and and hearing what they say is that they need access to affordable capital. We have businesses that have been in our area for a long time that want to make improvements but cannot afford to for a variety of reasons. [snorts] They um this would create a revolving lending program where we could offer below market interest rates, be flexible in the terms to meet the business needs and obviously like I said a revolving structure so the funds replenish and the loans are repaid. There's many possible um uses. One of the things we've known is it could be a compliance fund, meaning um there's things they need to do to get up to our codes. uh we have new codes coming out. Uh this would allow them to have some upfront affordable capital in order to make those um changes. This increases of course business opportunities and expansions. It supports the Aurorans that are willing to invest in Aurora. It strengthens commercial corridors, creates jobs and neighborhood stabilization and updated and code compliant businesses and buildings.

[snorts]

the special service areas capital improvement loan. This goal is to finance neighborhood infrastructure through SSAs. This city of Aurora would provide the upfront capital and then um we would levy they would repay through the tax levy. This makes it very low risk and again saving taxpayer dollars because they can get funding for large things such as soundwalls, streetscape, beautifification, etc. at a lower interest rate. Um it and it's again low risk. Uh we could le we levy it anyway and it can repay and refund this creating that funding structure to continue for those needs in our community. Um some other community benefits um less cost to taxpayer and they get them done. Uh improved livability, walkability, enhanced property values equals increased EAV strengthens neighborhoods reducing financial burden on the residents. Um lastly is the commercial PACE and the residential PACE loan fund. Uh PACE stands for property assessed clean energy. Uh the hope is to um help commercial property owners or people wanting to build commercial developments um to reduce energy costs and modernize buildings. Loans are repaid with a uh property assessment and there therefore is a very low default rates. The state of Illinois already has CPACE lending um through the Illinois Climate Bank. We are interested in doing that here. um they typically focus on very large developments. We hope to make it so if somebody wants to come in and do um a a smaller level development as well that this kind of lending would be available to them. Certainly lots of different kinds of projects if I've outlined here

including solar installations, HVAC modernization, um any sort of energy efficient retrofits, um high efficiency lighting, etc. Um, it's long-term, low interest financing. Cost savings often exceed the low payment loan payments. So, if you're retrofitting your business, you're actually saving in energy costs, which means you're paying less every month and that the loan repayment ends up being your savings. Um, so it's really can be beneficial to the business owners to do this work and allow them to stay longer. Um upgraded commercial properties is one of the city's benefits with less energy use, low cost to end user, strengthens um aging commercial corridors through modernization and of course once again increased EAV. The residential [snorts] PACE loan fund is a little bit different as we are talking about specifically housing. This would expand clean energy access for homeowners while we're reducing utility burden. As we know, our COMMED bills in our city have gone up by 30% this year, 10% next year is um what I've heard to we need to anticipate. These projects can be again retrofits um with residential solar, weatherization, insulation and energy efficient windows and doors. But this also would provide funding for net zero home construction as well. This allows homeowners, especially those in older homes, to make upgrades that reduce costs and increase comfort um and increase aging in place. Meaning, um you know, people my parents age can stay in their homes longer because there's less cost to the homeowner over time because their energy use is greatly uh lowered and therefore less energy payments out. Um it of course again um helps us uh uh

with our climate goals and it increases EAV. And again could we um are looking at a project um to uh help find a way to get some homes that are affordable into places um across the city that we'll present at a different time. But this would create financing um for people if as it's a lower than market rate. It creates affordable opportunities for those homeowners that would not have had access if not for this opportunity. Um, community benefits are again lower utility bills, more affordable, cleaner, more resilient housing stock in our community, um, increased home value, neighborhood stability, and allows participation in the clean energy transition without the upfront co capital, which so many homeowners have a hard time uh, um, finding or or going to that next level because of the costs.

[snorts]

So, collectively, all of these programs are low-risk, are about sustainable growth and self-relenishing. [snorts] It's a way that we're tackling not only affordable housing, um, but also economic development. As we have asked many in our community what they need and business owners, as we continue to talk to them on a very regular basis, the upfront capital, especially at a lower interest rate, is needed. Um you know somebody had mentioned um recently in on the dis about um incentives. We want to create something that is self- sustaining that we continue to have money to be able to give to businesses who want to invest in Aurora. We want to support them. We want to give them what they need. And so, um, we want to constantly have this. Now, although the depending if it's the 5 million or the 6 million, um, depending on that repayment from Alliance comes to us, um, what we are saying is we're not necessarily spending all of that in 2026, but we are putting it in a fund that would become a lending program for all of these um, with the hopes that it will continue to self- sustain. Um many of our projects that we've had over the past several years um have been supposedly being repaid by things like um uh increased food and beverage costs. Uh and we just haven't seen that actually come to fruition. um most of those loans if they're not in default, they're underpaying. And we need to find a way that we can truly earn back and um create continual opportunities for our businesses, our residents or the people looking to move to Aurora um to create these programs. So, this is our answer to that. Any questions?

I want to I want to just highlight that was probably way more detailed than what you asked for, but and it none of it's final. Obviously, it would have to come before council again, but you asked broadly, so we tried to answer um [snorts] what it is. And and as you can see, in the past, we've had a lot of forgivable loans. Um and a lot of those have been released without uh the developer dotting the eyes and crossing the tees, which Priscilla is doing an excellent job of now before we uh hand out what's been free money. And this creates a residual fund, which was the initial intent of the transformation fund. Um but I don't I don't think all the eyes's and T's are dotted. It's just broad strokes um redefining what that is. And I think the encumbered parts uh that has been getting spent is for the historic grant program and of course the other things she highlighted.

Yeah, the redevelopment agreements and the historic preservation programs. Alderwoman Smith, thank you for that. Um I appreciate it. Um a lot of great stuff in there. Um but to start with the numbers that I have for the transformation fund and the numbers that were on the screen are different considerable that I have [snorts] right now is $7.7 million in a transformation fund as so that was I had recognized that we hadn't made a place for um historic preservation. I'm going to go back to the and we don't have to I mean that's that's that's

So it is a late change that um Stacy and Christa have added now. It's because of that. So So these are the accurate numbers. Yes. Yep. Um,

the 150,000 I think is wrapped into the other stuff because I think I sent that to them last week as something we were recently talking about and needing some strategic plan for the city and a strategic plan for economic development as we're a very unique place um that has some unique challenges. So that would probably is wrapped into the lending program, but I wanted to be very specific on how we plan to use those funds. So without going into all the details because I understand this has got a long ways down the road and a lot of things have to be eyes need to be dot and so on. There is a lot of great things in the slide that you just showed us. But my biggest question is in a time where we are in a budget crisis, we now have according to my numbers which are different from your numbers $7.7 million that we're using as a economic development lo lending program at a time that we have a budget crisis. Is that and I'm sincerely asking this question because this is something that's really bothering me. Is that sincerely the best use of these funds and does it need to be so much of these funds because we had [snorts] other places in which some of these funds could have been

transferred. So I I'll let me I'll answer that briefly. So the thing is about this in general is that this does not we don't get 13 million every year or 16 million every year. Correct.

So we do not put operational costs um we don't tie operational cost to funds like this because um they are one and done. Right. We have uh this year taken 2 million from gaming tax which we really try not to do to cover up all the attrition instead of doing hard layoffs to do attrition especially around public safety. So we did do that um this year but that from what I understand and Brian can come up here and um and you know explain it as well. It is just it is not a structured way to uh budget um to take it from these things because this would may solve the problem for one year, but we're going to be right back here next year with the same issues.

Okay. I don't know if I agree with that, but I'm going to ask my next question. So, the um the gaming tax that was reimbursed the five Hi, hello there, Mr. Kabuto. 5 um3 million that was something that we reimbured ourselves. Correct.

Correct. that um and that was all that I believe was in the 2025 budget. Uh Stacy or Christa might be able to answer me on that. Reimburse that. Something that sincerely has been bothering me is in a time of a budget crisis, did that entire $5.3 million need to be reimbursed in one year or could a portion of it have been done within this year? And then, as we keep saying, next year is going to be a different year. You know, could could we have added to it next year? I just feeling like we spent all of our money [snorts] that perhaps some of it could have been used in other places. I will say that that happened before that we were here in that

Yeah, that money was was used to purchase the LAR property. I understand what it was used for. That's not my that's my question is did that reimbursement need to go all in at one time as we reimburseed ourselves? Does any does that make sense? the question. I think it was that we um you know, like I said, that happened before I was in this uh position. So, it's hard for me to know what if the gaming tax was if the gaming tax was empty and didn't have the money, they would have to move the money from the transformation fund over to the gaming tax.

That's the one thing I would add. I too was not here at the time that transaction took place as Brian Caputo, director of operations management. Um the gaming tax fund does not have a uh a I'll say an abundant balance. Um we've got demands that are on that fund as well. So if that f I can say this, if that 5 million didn't get there get to the gaming tax fund, there would be almost nothing left in the gaming tax fund right now. That that that the math I can attest to.

Okay. So I'm going to ask my question again. Um, and maybe I'm the one that's that's wrong here most likely because you guys would you know way more about numbers than I do. The $5.3 million, was it necessary? Because it looks like we reimburse as the reimbursement for for that line item. Did that all need to be reimbursed in one year? Could a portion of that money, let's just say 2 million since it's the number we're throwing around, have gone somewhere else? We would have had to cut two million from what was budgeted for game out of gaming taxes to do that. So if we're taking if we're not reimbursing Yes.

in this year, it's still we have a budget for the 6 million in gaming taxes. If we didn't reimburse that by 2 million, we wouldn't have the money out of there to pay for those things, that 2 million. So, you're saying that $5.3 million is allotted somewhere?

I'm I'm pretty sure that it was reimbursed probably shortly after the agreement to purchase the property. Um, my guess is that knowing the gaming tax, and that's about the full amount of the gaming tax that they probably didn't have it at the time of the purchase of the property in the property acquisition fund. So they probably moved it from the transformation fund over to the gaming tax fund which has the property acquisition fund but that once we spend it it has to be repaid somehow and just knowing that in full in full sure when if you buy property you generally have to pay for it in full and that that was a choice of the previous administration so we're kind of guessing at it but uh

I know but we're all we're all one administration now so that's why it's you know this is something that's in this budget so it's just a question that I how they I'm just saying how they how they move the money around is how they move the money around. So, I do appreciate you taking the time to put this together. There are there are a lot of really good things in here. I look forward to learning and knowing more about these things. Um but so that's all. Thank you. And can do you mind hitting on the structural budget piece and sort of the goals and objectives?

Well, I I I guess I could can comment on that. um that this money and it and the chief of staff alluded to this already that this is a pot of money that once it's gone, it's gone. And uh with the exception of the way that this um community and economic development lending program works where ideally it's going to replenish itself, but if simply spent, it's gone. we've tried to do with the 2026 budget is to have it in a way that it is again structurally balanced meaning that uh generally that current year revenues are covering current year expenses that we're not taking from other places um that are other places in the budget that are designated for other purposes or we're not um shorting the capital fund or any of those things. We're trying to align our operating fund in such a way that it works on a continuing basis. Um I think that's the the underlying principle of of what's in this budget.

Okay. Now I know Alderman White had something as well. Any other questions on this topic? Alderman Franco? Well, not on this but but on well yeah on the transformation fund. So two questions. The money that will be spent out of here for whatever loans we give, is that going to come through city council? Yeah. All of these programs will have to be um fully approved by city council. Okay. And then the residential PACE loan fund. Is that going to be income generated? Like if you make X amount of money, you're not qualified or you have to be below a certain threshold because for example, there's a couple of 600 $700,000 homes that are very old on Garfield and Downer.

If they want to upgrade to make it more energy efficient, would they be eligible or are they going to say, "Well, you got too much money." I think um so to talk broadly first of all as as you look at the new stretch codes you want to create incentives for new construction but also some for rehab construction as well right as it would you know to achieve the goals of it I would say those that would be the goal is to have multiple programs for it um but we haven't really come up with a concrete plan to send before council so I'm not I'm not sure if that answers your question

I just want to make sure that everybody's eligible and not just certain people are eligible because there's a lot of people out there that have some expensive homes that need to be fixed and I want to make sure that they're eligible for this too because it's their taxpayer money. I can say that um income eligibility is not something we've discussed as we and we have been researching um other [clears throat] municipalities across the country that use both RPACE and CPACE. Um so uh that hasn't come up in our discussions and certainly we'll take you know we'll take that um to those further discussions.

Okay, that's all I have. Thanks. Yeah, the goal is the goal is to make sure everybody can can access programs. Alderman clarification on what Alderman Frank just said. Approvals come to city council. So, you're not going to be writing any memos, correct? Without our knowledge. No. Okay. Thank you very much. Alderman Nunes. Uh, just a couple questions. I know there was mention of a previous loan program. So, have you guys discussed terms and what differences might be in term loan terms versus the previous program? how this is more of a guarantee that we are going to get our money back. So, so go ahead.

The the the two items been covered already, the two businesses had like I think a 2.5% interest rate. It's a below market interest rate. I think we would look at where the market's at and it can come in below market. So, it's a benefit to the developer, to the homeowner, to whoever. And it the the stability on the city side is that it's being repaid on property taxes. So, okay. Second question is uh there was mention of uh strategic land uh acquisitions. Could you talk a little about that or the projects that were mentioned as well?

Yeah. So um you know for example the um you know land acquisition that we did um previously now with such a small fund I don't think we'll be purchasing $5.5 million worth of land. We're very interested in these loan programs based on what we've heard from the community of the need, but if there is something specific um you know down the pike, usually there is some of that um availability in order to purchase some land based on economic developments um you know position on that as that this is a good opportunity. Again, that would come before council as well

and there's I can tell you there's nothing we're trying to unload property and go in the opposite direction. And we're not playing by property, but periodically it's actually an alderman word alder person that comes forward with something that they want to see acquired. I appreciate that. Thank you, Alderman White. So, here in conversation, I don't think I have questions. I was really going to delve deep into some of this, but it sounds like this is just a presentation to let us know what the transformation fund will be used for at a high level and then at some point you'll come back to us with more of the uh nuances of how this will take place.

Yes, every piece will is a piece of legislate legislation that has to be passed through this dis. But this would be for 2026 though, correct? Just like anything in our budget, I would say that we have for 2026 that is over, you know, a certain amount, just we we come to you and ask for permission as a piece of legislation um before we spend those funds.

Okay. My thought is if this would be for 2026, we want to have this in place for 2025. So then in January or as early as possible, u this will be rolled out. But it sounds like we'll be building it in 2026 though. Um, as much as I would love to roll it out in January, there's a lot of banking regulatory um, systems that we have to put in place that will take to create a lending program like this. So, there is uh, we're currently working on meetings with regulatory bodies in order to u make sure we do this right and we'll bring that legislation forward. And do you have a timeline in which an anticipated idea or wish an idea of which a realistic idea in which some this would come before us

there? Um so we are uh we do have plans to bring the CPACE legislation forward first. Um since the state already has uh CPACE legislation, we're using kind of a model ordinance around that. That might be one of those, but that's through only through the state. Um we wouldn't be funding that. the state funds those um programs if but they're bigger. So you'll get a kind of taste of what that looks like there. But our own CPACE or RPACE would come later than that. I have created a report that um has a timeline that is very rough. But until we meet um and talk about the regulations, I'll have a better idea that I can propose to the council on timeline. But we really need to look at legal uh finan legal financial stuff um more in depth to the specific thing we're doing um because it's that's very important that we get that right.

Okay. So, but it is realistic to uh in in your opinion is realistic to have to develop this have it in place and then being able to use these funds all in 2026? Well, as I said, we would be creating a specific fund to um to have to have a revolving sort of bank of these loans. So, we might not spend all of this next year. I highly doubt we will.

Um but we will be creating the legislation. We will be coming to you. We will be starting these programs. But it is a it is a big lift. But I think it's in reaction to what we've been hearing from our community. Yeah, I I really like the idea. It's very creative. I like the idea of self- sustaining versus using the money for one time. So, I'm excited to see what this looks like.

Probably just to answer quickly, the timeline will be after the budget passes. Hopefully, that's tonight. And then, uh the bit small business piece will probably go first. There's a lot of people clamoring for that. CPACE and then probably our pace after that. Mayor, maybe I if I could just clarify um something that uh alderwoman uh Smith brought up about trying to tie the numbers out. What I think what the question was was where is this in the budget? And if I pointed you there, it' even be more confusing. So, we did is try to pull out the pages with most of the late changes and carryovers put in it. Right? If you were to go down this, you could, not that I'm suggesting you you should, but if you were to go down down the uh the budget pages, you could tick and tie all of this except for um the $1 million for historic uh preservation. That's a late change.

Okay. Um and then in the contractual services line that 150 100 of it is here for a citywide strategic planning process and 50 of it really is embedded within the uh revolving community and economic development lending program. But if you were to it could be done to tie it out. I think the chief of staff was trying to make this um digestible for presentation purposes. Okay. I was just using your numbers to to look at and then your numbers were different. So Yep. and we discovered that it wasn't budgeted in 2025 during the process of making your presentation. So all the other all the woman paid, but but the program's been up and running and we're spending the money. All [snorts] the woman made.

Thank you. Um Shannon, can we please go over on page four uh return of payment to the alliance and there's an asterisk that that refers to use to subsidize aka.

So yeah, we're taking um some funding from two different places. Um our hope is that that we have um that million dollars. Um we have a plan which is to lower that if we don't get that million dollars um we will just reduce that lending. Um we'll have we'll be that's why I'm trying to make sure you're all aware of that if we don't get the million dollars back based on um we have divvied up responsibilities between the city of Aurora and the alliance through many conversations and meetings with them recently. um but that we're hoping if we if we don't get that million back, we will take it out of that revolving community and economic development. Just to clarify um the we are in discussion with the alliance literally we had another meeting this week where um that we essentially divided up agreed tenatively agreed to how the responsibilities would be divided up between an internal economic development function and what a a ch traditional sort of chamber of commerce would do and what things we what functions we would we would share. Um next week we're going to meeting be meeting again to talk a bit about their budget for the coming year and just talk generally about how um the that kind of a traditional uh chamber of commerce has stood up w over some reasonable period of time. Uh we don't know and I think I mentioned this in a previous meeting. We don't know exactly how much is going to come back from uh from the alliance. We haven't gotten that far to discuss that. We want to make sure that the alliance um that the the succeeding uh chamber of commerce um is reestablished in an orderly manner uh and in a manner that makes sure that they're vital and functional. So, we don't know exactly what that how much money they're going to need. We haven't gotten to that discussion yet, but we are expecting hoping would probably be a better word that $2 million would come back. It's

just that's just an estimate. We haven't gotten that far. 1 million would come back into this fund and uh that 1 million if it doesn't come back in as the chief of staff mentioned earlier that if it doesn't come back in that 6.6 roughly million dollars shown there for the revolving community and economic development lending program by necessity has to be reduced by a million. the other million and that's why the asterisk uh maybe to clarify that that other million is going into the gaming tax fund and we are anticipating making we've already talked about this a $2 million payment to um uh to AKA to help support their operations next year. So 1 million of it is basically gaming tax fund balance. Another million is hopefully hopefully a repayment from from the alliance. There's where the 2 million comes from. If if the million here or there does not come in either place doesn't come through, we have to make some adjustments. It's just just the way it by necessity.

Holder woman bait and then we're going to move on to the next one. So we still got two more topics and it's 9:12 p.m. So um so we are expecting 2 million back. Is that what I'm going to use the word hoping? We are hoping. And did they give us any of the details of how they have spent? We have not gotten that far uh yet. I mean, here's what here's what we can do with that is we're doing two on two meetings next week to talk about online. We can bring you up to speed in that as well. Okay, that's perfect. Will that help? Yes, that to the extent that we know that.

I will say um part of the transformation fund actually what we gave to the alliance was called the transformation fund. um what everyone who was an alderman then um voted on also required an annual financial report. Yes, we did. Um so so we can ask for that annual financial report. Okay. And the other thing was uh when we put this money for revolving community and economic development lending program um this is rest of the money from 16 million other everything else is spent or allocated.

That is correct. This is the balance. Um could we have uh planned 1 million for rainy day and rest of it for lending program? Well uh what would you like spent on that rainy day fund? I mean some I I am just asking if there was one bucket with

we we typically don't um have like some sort of uh just money sitting there that isn't specifically allocated that I um I'm aware of. Brian can speak more to the history of that. Well, I would I would I would say that we still need to come back to the council with what this um the details of what this lending program looks like and given that we don't know the details yet, how it's allocated, um it'd be real conjecture at this point. I mean, I suppose anything's possible, but we really need to go back and take a look at how this is going to work before we make any commitments. I'd say about any kind of to start the year. Um, some interest is going to be accumulated on that and that's what the $200,000 has shown for 2026.

That's quite low. This interest it could very well be higher. I mean, we on the I mean I let Stacy probably comment on this further, but um when it comes to investment income, we do tend to estimate conservatively. I mean, it easily could be more. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um I'm going to if we could I I know you had a question a budget related question alderman white for DSC still have that then we'll move to EKA DSC uh development services for John Curley. Oh yeah. Oh yes. Um I didn't know we were there. Um [laughter] so I do have

it was a budget related question. I'm trying to go through everything all the concerns people had. Um so I I reached out after the after

so u you've come to us uh on a number of occasions um discussing the accolades that uh property standards um and your team has received and uh you even go nationwide and present on some things that you've the creative things that you've done and uh you've also mentioned that your team has some of the highest credentials in the state if not the country. Uh so just leaving out of last week's meeting, I I I had a concern that uh with the increased stretch codes and uh with the uh push to bring businesses in uh would my concern is will any of that be impacted with your um with the current budget that you have to operate in for next year because the last thing I'd want is for uh your stellar reputation to be impacted because of budget constraints.

Yeah. Uh thank you very much for the question, Alderman White. I uh I'm John Curley, chief development services officer. Uh what you're referring to with respect to our the rating that we have is uh similar to what fire was just talking about. It's a different standard but from ISO. It's called BGS. It's a building code grading effectiveness score. Uh we have the best in the state. Um I I did respond by email. Uh I think I assume Rich might have actually shared it with you all. Yes, he did. Um the we will feel some we will definitely feel some impacts in particular on plan review, but let me start with we we did we did get some V-Riff um candidates from my department and we've talked through uh whether or not they are key individuals where we we need to replace them. As an example, uh we we are losing twothirds of our electrical uh plan review and inspection staff and the administration is allowing us to advertise to replace those. So, we've determined that the unplanned changes um from the um uh that that weren't in the decrement discussions to begin before the V-Riff uh that we're we're dealing with those and trying to make sure that those don't impact us in an unplanned way. Um, with respect to the the decremented items, uh, what we're going to be doing, uh, similar again to what, uh, fire answered, it will impact us. Uh, we have a couple of, uh, maybe luxuries that fire doesn't have, um, what, uh, we're not emergency responders. If our services slow slightly, um, there are things we can do to try and mitigate what those what those ser the service slows downs would be. But we also will be monitoring them very a lot. We do that now. Uh but we'll see as our services slide on time frame.

Um the benefit or the or I guess the other u item that we uh have the luxury of is we're a revenue generating division department. So uh when that occurs that we're slowing down because we have too much volume. Uh there's also a very strong likelihood that we would have additional revenue that was unplanned as well and we would bring that to everyone's attention to say hey we're this is this particular thing is sliding. I did see this all play out in 2008 I guess it was 2009. Um in 2009 we lost half of our electrical staff and I could show you graphs on exactly what happened and exactly what the building department did. Um and it was those positions were replaced but it was through um demonstrating essentially that there's an impact and uh also demonstrating what the uh revenue source could be to mitigate the impact. So I will be watching that very carefully and then bringing that forward to the administration and as I mentioned in the email happy to share that with uh anybody that's interested on our time frames.

Okay. [clears throat] Um, that's good to know that. And I apologize. I I did not see the email. So, if you I I didn't see it. So, and I I looked so um if you said all that in the email, I ap I apologize for you. No, that's okay. I think it probably came from uh from Rich and myself.

Got it. Okay. That makes sense. Um but it is good to know that there's a point of reference that you can look at like you can you experienced this in 08 and you've made it you made adjustments then so u you can go back to that and do the same thing for this year if by chance u situations tend to become [clears throat] um unattainable. So yep thank you any other questions for development services on the budget? None. Thank you, John. Thank you.

Alderman Seville, I don't know if you wanna uh where where you want to start. I I do have the um Tim did make it. So, we do have the we do have the MDQ um information that they sent over. I could pop that up on the screen if that's where you want to start. Okay. Sure. That'd be great. Thank you, Mayor. Is John, can can you put that up? Thanks. It's very tiny. Good luck. Hello.

It is tiny. So, so what this is is this shows um the million-dollar quartets performance uh which really started off with gang busters. I'll let I'll let Tim talk about it. Um and and I know Alderman Seville had some questions or goals here. Thank you. Thank you, mayor.

Hi, my name is Tim Rder. I'm the CEO of the Aurora Civic Center Authority. Also an Aurora resident. Um, I think what you have in front of you is a kind of our profitability by month for Million-Dollar Quartet since it started in July of 24. You'll see the first 6 months it had basically overall a net profit of about $90,000 and um since January of 25 through October, we're uh we have a deficit of about $248,000. There's some additional numbers below with attendance and um percent of house that we've promote uh promote for the houses. So it basically kind of illustrates the seasonality of of how the show is doing currently.

Thank you. And and it looks like pretty much I think you told me you were going good till February, but it uh the first loss was actually January and then we really started to take a hit uh over the summer months. Yeah. Each month does have a different story to it. January we took a month off but we still had to pay the actors and that's that's part of the reason January was Yep. And then we also took a couple weeks off in July before we remount it. And uh and when we reopened our our extension, the latter extension in the last six months, um we invited the community and pressed back to see it again u middle of July. Okay. And then just if if you could share what is your plan for MDQ currently?

Um [clears throat] uh we haven't announced it publicly or uh you know we do plan to announce our plan. We will do another segment. Um so I'll get the scoop here. Uh it's doing really well. We're planning next week to actually announce an extension and uh uh to pick back up. We'll have a few weeks off and then we'll pick up another extension like uh promoting it as the final extension. Must close. Come see it now. If it does well, we'll take a look at it and see if we can extend it further. Uh we've talked about also um um what we might do for a second. Uh we're calling we're calling them like limited engagements. uh one limited engagement starting in March and then if that does really well, we might just keep it running and then we have another limited engagement at the end of the year. Uh we're considering doing um uh either a continuation of our current million-dollar quartet or doing uh a million-dollar quartet Christmas.

Don't tell anyone. And then and then did um did uh when did we start the buy one get one and are people taking advantage of that and has that that helped it pick up over the

we um I forget specific timing but I think we did um a buy one get one free for Aurora residents for September and October. Uh that helped fill some houses. We also have done limited promotions to various targeted groups such as subscribers or previous ticket buyers or people that bought million-dollar quartet when it was at the Paramount um seven, eight years ago. And it's flash sales. So, we've done several buy one get one or buy one get one half off. Uh the buy one get ones are generally for the lesser like the Wednesday Thursday nights. They're a little harder to fill. Um versus the buy one get one half off which are the more popular days and times. Um the houses were probably at 90 plus percent capacity um for on average. Uh it's doing it's doing well but it's it is a thin margin of a show and uh the people that are seeing it as you know they love the show. It's not highly um highly I mean we do surveys where we measure satisfaction with the production by extremely satisfied highly satisfied um uh somewhat satisfied not at all satisfied and we have 99% extremely satisfied on this production as compared to the best shows at the Paramount which are at 97 96 um so it's it's really it's people see it and they want to come back and they want to see it again. Our average repeat customer right now is about 15% of our house has seen the show before whereas 85% have uh are coming for the first time. So that's kind of the numbers on million-dollar quartet.

Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Raider? Oh, did you want to did you want to have me throw the other present? Go ahead. Go ahead. Alwoman Smith, you said March and the end of the year. Are you talking about changing a show, a new show, or just I mean we're Yeah, it'll be a business decision depending on how Oh, sorry. You can whisper.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, whisper. Um, yeah. So, it could be either. It could be million-dollar quartet for that segment and it could continue longer or we might do what I what's most likely is if we don't do Million-Dollar Quartet, we would do Million-Dollar Quartet Christmas. Um, that would be the other production. And it's completely different. It's actually completely different script. All different songs, just holiday themed. And it's set in the same spot, so it wouldn't be extremely expensive to to produce. And would we ever consider using that area for a complete different show? Yes, absolutely. Okay. Because at some point it's going to run out of gas completely. Absolutely. Thank you.

Kind of it's a wait and seeand go. How how how well it's doing with all open runs at any theater that they have these open runs. they just kind of have to they they want to keep it going as long as they can. They you know you put a lot of money into the creation of the theater, the capitalization of the show itself, the scenic, the props, the costumes, and you want to kind of run it as long as we can. And for us, it's kind of a badge of honor with, you know, with folks that um tend to it's it's I think bringing people to Aurora that are speaking very highly of what they've what they've experienced. Alderman White. [clears throat] Yeah. So, first it's a pleasure meeting you. I've never met you. Nice to meet you, too.

Your your name is legendary because we've been talking a lot about you, but now I have a name with the face. So, that's help. So, if I see you in the grocery store and or if I upset you, I apologize. I didn't know who you were. Okay. Um, and vice versa. [laughter] First question with the net profit loss. Is that you may have mentioned it. I might have missed it. Are these in millions? Oh, no, it's not. Okay. Yeah. So, you're saying May 2025, you made a profit of 85 $8,300 in the total year to date for 2025 through October is we've lost $248,000. So, I'm just saying like in May 2025 you made Yeah. That month you made $8,300.

That's correct. We had a net profit of $8,300. Oh, okay. Yeah. Okay. So, that that helps. Second question, comp tickets. I'm assuming those are like high schools coming to see the tickets for free. Explain the comp ticket thing to me. It

it's um depending on the month we like when we opened in July, we did a lot of press comps. Um also when we did our second or our third leg. So some of it's press. A lot of it honestly is when we're trying to fill houses last minute. We do a special promotion targeted at different groups. And um there a lot of them are cast and staff comps to to fill houses and um and we also target specific groups offering them the the chance to see it for free. Got it. Okay. So then so then the question my final question percent of comps. Yeah.

So we'll just take the largest number July 2025 22% of the sales were comps. What's the significance of showing the percent of tickets that are comps? Uh well, I think that was a request from um the chief of staff wanted to know what percentage were comped. Yeah. Okay. Overall, it's 11% of the Yeah, you can see the overall number. Okay. So, to date, as of October, you're at a negative 248,000. Correct. But then you have November, December, which has a lot of shows. So, do you think that will that number will go down? Okay. Will it become positive at the end of the year?

I don't think it will get to the positive. It'll it'll get my guess is it'll it'll probably erase about a third to half of that. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. The houses these two months are very full with very few comps. So, and we also recently increased the ticket price for all the all the remaining performances for Million-Dollar Quartet. That's part of the model for next year as well as we've increased the ticket price ever so slightly. Again, we went from 65 to 70. We're going to from 70, which is our current model, to 75 next year. So, and is this all the theaters combined or this is this number? This number here is just million-dollar quartet at the school. Just million dollar court. Oh, yeah. So, we're talking just the one.

Okay. Okay. Understood. Yeah. No, but we have done pricing changes in the Paramount and as well and some other stuff. So, Okay, understood. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Um I I do have the other presentation from our transition team if you want to see it. I don't know if you're um Oh, it's just on the It's It hasn't been prepared. We're not voting on it tonight, but on the on the uh tax that you were at the entertainment. Yeah, I'm going to address that. Okay. Got it. Okay. I have slides if you want to see them. We'll we'll bring them up if you want them. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. And Tim, I appreciate you coming here tonight. I know you had another event you were attending. So,

no, I we have our usher volunteer party. I was able to say hello and and come on over.

Great. Well, we appreciate it. So, and I think um for those of us that have been uh uh involved in in this uh and we all have to some extent. We all h have concerns about things that are going on with the tightened budget and and I appreciate um uh the answers that were presented not only from you but from police and fire the last two weeks as well. That's cleared up many of our concerns that we have in the community with regard to first responders and with regard to um one of the main economic pillars in our downtown which is AKA uh and what you guys are are doing for our downtown to promote it and the like. And and the thing about the million-dollar quartet with the Stro Island Theater, that's that's a new theater. Most people in the region still don't know that that theater exists. So, this is a new venue that you're getting out and advertising and promoting it. And word of mouth is coming back in a positive way. And I think I shared with you when I attended the the event for my first time in May is the people in in front of us, that was their fifth time there. And they were from out of town. They weren't even from Aurora. So, that's significant, I think. and and and I think not only be do we want to support you as AKA and your mission with your your performances and the management of your venues that they you have undertaken but we want to make sure the downtown continues to grow and prosper uh and come back from actually this is the first time we've had this type of economic activity since the Foxy Mall opened in 1974. This is significant for our city. Uh, and we should do all we can to make sure that you succeed and the board succeeds. Uh, and the mission of of everybody that we have in our uh, working together succeeds for for our downtown. Uh, and so we covered many things. Your attendance uh, the t the fact that you have 85% of the people that are attending your performances and your different venues are coming from out of town. Only 15% of Aurorans are are attending. That's significant as well.

That says a lot that people perceive the downtown and what you're doing here in our downtown is is of such a quality nature that they're willing to come from out of their city all drive all the way here, spend their money and and go to our businesses and our and our restaurants and come home and tell their friends and family about it. That's that's what we want to see more of. Uh and so with that and with the discussions that we've had on this uh and I understand you do have the money for the boiler and the chiller, right? So that that that is going to be covered because I understand in talking to you

uh recently that um that it's needing to be done this year. Okay. And so with all that and and the fact that the and I appreciate the agreement that the mayor negotiated with regard to three months on and three months off to to have six months of shows. I don't think that that's enough. Uh [clears throat] now I'm I'm from the position that I think you need a full year, but I understand we probably don't have the support to do that. I'm willing to to make an amendment uh on the budget. And I want to distribute this to the to the alderman right now about this uh is to allocate more money for you. Uh but to do it in such a way where we we would have to justify it by having an entertainment tax which and I've done some research on this. Both Chicago and Evston and I've been so busy I apologize but those are the only two cities that I researched. They both have entertainment taxes. And so I'm proposing that we allocate uh amend the budget um to give you an act another 400,000 which roughly maybe gives you four more months of programming depending on how you spend that money thereby bringing more people and economic activity to our downtown and giving a soft landing to not only to you but for the downtown as well because you will be increasing your capital uh plans to raise money thereby and needing less money from us in subsidizing that. So, I think it's a it's a partnership that we can proceed on. Uh, and so I asked and I talked with the mayor about this and uh he asked your ordained to to come up with a motion and I want to make that if I may at this point in time a motion to amend the proposed budget to increase expenditure account 101-1360-45.50-20 50-20 by $400,000 to be funded by future amusement tax in 2026 and to increase revenue account 101-1360-31404-00

by the same amount to reflect the anticipated future amusement tax. So, what that means is we would allocate money out of the out of the budget today of $400,000 in the budget, but the finance committee would consider this and give it their due process and make a recommendation to come before the city council with hopefully with all deliberate speed. So, that's my motion, Mayor. So, what what the alderman is proposing is is that we uh enact an an entertainment tax to cover the cost of the 400,000. And you get to the 400,000 through the math of what is it? 630,000 tickets that were or or is it 630,000 tickets?

It's uh last in 2024 we had approximately 630,000 attendees at active venues. About about 230 of,000 of those were to Chris Kindle Market which is not ticketed. So I I think that's where the 400,000 then would come from. So we have about 400 roughly 400,000 um tickets issued. Well, we did have roughly 400,000 tickets issued in 2024 that are being paid for that are paid paid from the four theaters. Yes. From River Edge, from Stoop Island, u from Copley and from Paramount. Correct.

Right. Right. So, this is a way of having the money available through a special entertainment tax that would only be utilized at the AKA venues uh for the purposes of allocating more monies for them. with their mission.

So, just just so the council's aware, when Alderman Seville brought this forward, uh my transition committee did [clears throat] actually Dan Ferguson, who works for the city and was on the transition committee, he works in our finance department, had looked at this as a possible revenue stream, uh which again we are not voting on tonight. I do have several slides if people want to see them, but as as Alderman Seville said, this has been explored in other places. When I brought it up to finance, they had a number of questions. Would it impact the venue? would it impact other high school entertainment? Um, the initial proposal by Mr. Ferguson also included a streaming tax which other municipalities have also uh considered. So, that would be coming down the road. But if if there's a motion and a second and enough people vote for this, then those same people presumably would would have to vote for that some form of that tax, which at a minimum would be a dollar per ticket, which would roughly cover it according to your math. Is that correct?

That is correct. I Yeah, I think we would have to break out on the details in the coming coming weeks, but yeah. So the So there's been a motion. If if there's a second and if anybody wants to see the slides, I'll pull them up. Second and I have questions. So there's a motion and a second. Uh the question goes to Alderman'sville or sorry, Alman Mesakos. It's only 9:30 only. You just talked about raising your ticket price, didn't you? Yes, we Yeah, I did mention that. Yep. Does the city have anything to do with that? Uh we knew that with the budget crisis, we needed to help. No, no. I mean, do we collect that money? I I know the answer, but do we collect that money?

No. No. Do we have anything to do with how you collect your money from the tickets? All right. So, you could raise the prices to $6 to make it $76. That's right. If you wanted to to get that your quasi form of government as well, right? Yeah. We can price anything at whatever price we feel is appropriate. We've been very deliberate in our pricing. We've over the past 15 years, we've increased on average about 5% per year, our top ticket price, okay? Specifically for Broadway. And this season, we've increased our ticket price, okay,

about 20% and we're going to do another bump next year. So, this would be on top of that. And if it is a small enough increment, um, we've pushed it to where we felt comfortable, but if we're talking a dollar, I don't know that that would have a dramatic impact on sales. We But you can create that, you can raise it to another dollar yourself. That is correct. Yeah. Okay. Because what I want to get to as well now is with this with with with this proposal before us, that would mean that the city would have to get involved now to collect an extra dollar. Correct. Correct. There would be some administrative work on it. They'd give it to us and we write a check to give it back to them. Correct.

That's what would happen as opposed to you just raising it to $6. You don't have to collect the money, write us a check, and then we give it back to you. Okay. All right. Now, my second my question is if I we can have someone expand a little bit on the concept of what is it exactly that these other communities are taxing. Is it a similar type of quasi form of government uh with their with their venues? So, we can understand how that structure set up and why there's a tax uh so I can understand what the difference or the comparabilities are here with what's being proposed.

I'm going to tell you now that I can pull the slides up, but I don't think Dan Ferguson is here tonight who's the person who's done the research on it. Um and and what they did and what we did don't have to be congruent. Um but that I think there is capacity to do something there. U is John, can you pop those slides up? might as well flip through them. And you can kind of you can kind of uh you know, I mean, these are just bullet points. And again, this is all on the on the fly here trying to um you know, just address how how you would potentially fund it. Uh but again, there's some places that have sporting uh venues. We don't we don't have any. Uh we don't have a a major university with sporting tickets that I'd think we would tax. I think AU would probably be opposed to us. uh taxing theirs, but that's something that's been considered. Uh movies and cinemas, we don't have a a movie theater, and this would probably if we included movie theaters might prevent a movie theater from ever coming here. Uh we do have amusement, I guess it's not amusement parks, but um you know, we have River Edge and I I believe Alderman Seville uh was looking at just considering the tax on only uh uh the ACA facilities, the four AKA facilities. Correct.

Yeah.

Right. but he's asked what else has been done. So, let's just flip through the slides and people can see what other So, this is Evston and theirs is a percent. It's not a flat tax. Um, and they have exemptions for nonprofits, schools, etc. Um, Bloomington is the other one. And again, the purpose here is just to show that other municipalities have done something similar. And next slide. Uh and then this is a look at digital uh streaming which both Chicago and and Evston have also done but that would create um even more of a a burden on collection. Uh Dan said that there's people that monitor this and it wouldn't be that difficult. But that's not what we're talking about uh in in Alderman Sevil's proposal, but this is just some of it. And then the following slide I think is go back is this is just the committee recommended this uh that again it's the transition committee uh made a recommendation that this is one uh potential revenue stream that could better support AKA and so when Alderman Seville brought this proposal after doing his own research I let him know that we had already done some internal research again I'm not the person that did it but I did want to at least uh share the share the concept and how it's been implemented in other municipalities. Does that answer your question?

Um, yes and no. I mean, I'd love to know what these ordinances are exactly. What do they tax in general? So, they don't just tax one specific entity. They tax pretty much across the board andor to a certain attendance uh seating capacity and it's a percentage and they keep that money. So, the municipality keeps that money. That's what I'm gathering here from the slides. We don't know. Yeah. I don't I don't know what they do with it.

Okay. Because then potentially if we if we do part this $1 per ticket, doesn't necessarily mean that we have to give it back every year. We could probably keep it if they figure out how we become solvent and and keep moving on their own. We could probably keep that unless we revoke that 1% tax or the $1 tax down the road. I I don't think that's the intent, but it's not the intent. Certainly it would it would have to be drafted uh in a in a way that I think your intent was to uh make it more residual. But I'll let you answer that question since

Yeah, I would say the intent is to uh make it so we because we could always spend money on something else with the city on on on a variety of things and needs that we all have. But my intent is to make it only go to AKA uh and and help them. You know, when we go out and buy a good at the score at the store, I'm sorry. Uh whether whether it be a big screen TV or whatever, we don't ask what the tax is. We just pay it. What we ask is how what's the sale price. And that's the same with the ticket. Uh when they when they buy a ticket for MKA, they don't ask what the taxes are. They ask what the sale price is, and they pay that. And if if you're embarking upon an increase that's really a tax, which is what this would be, then you're making AKA less competitive, I think. And I think you've done a study with regard to raising your rates in pre in, you know, preceding years, but you've done it in a way where it doesn't affect your market that you're hoping to to draw into our community. And these are some of the details that would be fleshed out at finance committee. This is just right now approving the amendment of allocating more monies and referring that ordinance uh to staff and the finance committee to flesh out and make a recommendation to city council.

Correct. Can I ask you a question? [clears throat] Alderman Alderman Smith then alderman Bait. Alderwoman Smith. Alderwoman Smith. I'm going to direct it to you because it's um your um amendment here. Are you suggesting that we give the 400,000 upfront to AKA and include it in the budget or are you suggesting we give it to them over time? Are you suggesting we add this amount to the AKA budget now?

Well, I would direct that really to the mayor with the $2 million that we're giving them. When do they get that? So we some of it we we delayed because it's coming from gaming tax from the anticipated new revenue coming out of the casino. So the the hope part comes from the transformation fund and part comes from uh the gaming tax of new revenue coming forward. So I think we were looking at somewhat something early, half early and half later. With respect to if we were to do this, presumably it would be later because you would have to collect the the ticket uh sales along along the way throughout the year. And presumably we would need to run this through finance at the beginning of January to give you as much time to accumulate the those ticket um

I'm not done with my revenue. Okay, I'm finished my questions. Okay. So, presumably if we do it later, um if we go forward with this and would that give enough funding for 10 months of million-doll quartet versus six months of million-dollar quartet and could that happen in 2026? I I think we'd want to look at how the next extension goes before we made a final determination. But I would think that it would allow us to take that March that March extension and run it through the entirety of 2026. I would think that that would that would get the job done.

Okay. And my and another question is when we look at this um number that number included the bold series last year, the 400,000 tickets, right? The the number of tickets. Yes. So that would be subtracted out in 2026. Correct. That number is not a large number. I forget what would be off top of my head, but last year in 24 was not a full year for Million-Dollar Quartet either. It was only a half year. So, I think they might balance out. Okay. And it also wasn't a full year for River Edge Park at all. No.

Yeah. The 20 We had 24 numbers in that in that 6:30, but we didn't have 25 numbers. And lastly, something for us to all remember is that every time there's a show, there's more people in our downtown and they're spending money in our restaurants and our bars. So, it goes bigger than just this dollar right here. So, we have to remember that. And every show we remove, six months, 10 months versus six months is less money um spent outside of the theater. So, um I do like this idea. Um I hope we move forward with it.

And mayor, uh and uh the dollar that we talked about is just a number that we threw out. I mean, you would consider like a$125 or $150. If that's not enough to cover, I think we'd want to talk about what the actual and maybe different depending on if it's

exly. So, I understand that's not totally cast in stone. This gives us an idea. uh as to and tells us what your needs are so we can make the decision accordingly. Uh but uh you know but but my goal is not not necessarily to all to help AKA 100% it's to have us partnership with the downtown and aka and the city uh moving together on this and providing an economic development so all can succeed. So Alderwoman Bade and then Alderman Ben Willows. So um this is going to be only be applicable to aka this entertainment or amusement tax.

What certainly the the proposal needs to come before the finance committee and come before the whole council but what Alderman Seville is suggesting right now is just a $1 tax per ticket on the four AKA facilities excluding the venue excluding I guess you can't exclude all nonprofits because AKA is a is a nonprofit. Oh okay. So um right now if we collect tax there is administrative time or manpower involved.

Good point. As Alderman Masako mentioned, why don't we just increase the price of ticket by one or two dollars? Whatever you are planning to increase, just increase that instead of having city collected, pay additional overtime to city staff or hire another person for uh this and there'll be some cost to that. Uh and another thing was uh if we collect more than 400k all of it goes to aka or just 400k goes to aka and rest remains with the city. I'm I'm not clear about this. This is just goes to aka so what is this 400,000 then

all would go to aka this is just a entertainment tax to help aka and aka only. Okay. So whatever we collect everything goes back to aka correct this is just an example. So why doesn't the ticket price increase by $2 and why are we at catching it and then sending it back? I don't understand. I don't want to speak for a but I think I I would assume you market your shows based on the cost of the ticket not based on the taxes that would be

attached to it. Uh, and like I was explaining earlier, when you go to the store or shop online these days, whatever, you don't look at the tax, you know that you have to pay the the value that they're asking for it. And there's going to be some tax. And nine times out of 10, you won't even ask what the tax is. You just pay it. And we're we're doing this such a proposal for a nominal amount. It's not like it's going to price a out of the market and hurt their business. And how was online? Sorry. Well, I just wanted to mention we can thank Ticket Master for changing some recent legislation. So, if we mention a ticket price in an advertisement, it has to include all of the potential fees. So, um taxes or fees,

taxes included, fees, online fees. You have to list the maximum dollar value of the highest ticket. So, um so you have two choices. Not mention what the ticket costs, which we do more now than we used to. Um or you list you can list maybe a range tickets from this to that, but that range has to include all fees. So that's why we're a little sensitive about and we actually our fees are not our in-person fees are only $1 historic preservation fee, but then when they buy on the on phone, there's a phone fee of $3 per ticket. If they buy on the internet, there's an additional 14.5% uh for convenience fee for buying on the internet. So, it does add up and that number gets um it gets big and we unfortunately can't give them the tickets starting at $17 anymore. We have to do the we can thank ticket master though. So,

yeah. So, your hidden tax will not be hidden. It's not so hidden. So um so when we are when people are buying tickets online on Paramount's website now they will there will be another item with amusement tax that will be correct sent to city and then correct you will get it back. So once every 3 months, 6 months, however we wanted to we would we would run a report, cut a check, send it to the city. Correct. Okay. Hi, Alman. Alderman Benwell.

Hi. Um, I just have a quick question. Um, in your expertise, why is the million-dollar quartet losing money? Well, it's it's we're [snorts] just not u sell we're not selling enough tickets to cover the cost. That's the long and the short of it. It's um it's a word of mouth is tremendous on the show, but the audiences are limited. So, it's it's taking time to generate the word of mouth. And so, you're going to remedy that by

Well, we hope this next Well, eventually we're going to have to close the show when we stop selling enough and that's what we're looking at. We're looking at ultimately we'll need to close the show because it's losing money. Um, so it's losing money now. We would close the show if it if it continues to lose money. So, um, part of the business that we're in is, you know, we're responsible for bringing people downtown. That's our job. Expose them to the arts. Um, it's best if it's done in volume. that has more impact on the on the uh uh community um especially the restaurants. And if we can keep the tickets affordable, then we have more people that show up. So, we're playing that game of trying to bring as many people downtown, not overcharge, but you know, also pay our bills and that's why we're constantly adjusting, you know, pricing um trying to trying to squeak out what we think we can, what the market will bear. So,

have you seen the show, Alderman Ben Willows? Yes, it's a great show. All right. Just making sure. White. Have [snorts] you? Yes, I have not. No, I could tell. Why do you say [laughter] that? I could tell by the questions you Oh, okay. Well, I didn't Okay, got you. We'll get you. Fair enough. Oh, goodness. I do have a question. Alman Wayne. Um, so I have a question. Is the specifics of how this is written? I'm trying to understand. I see we're increasing expenditures in one account by 400,000. Then it says increasing expenditures in another account by the by the same amount. Can you explain that? That's a that's a staff that's a staff question.

All right. Good evening, Linda Reid, Controller, Deputy Treasur. Uh, one is a revenue, one is an expense. So basically the one with the 300 number level is the revenue and the 400 number is the expense and they offset to zero. So it's zeroing back to the budget. Okay. Alman Bug, are you done? Alman, sorry. Alderman Bug.

Yeah. Again, I want to thank you for coming, Tim. Uh, and really your response to our predicament, uh, you know, you have looked at things, you've seen some things that need to move around. Um, you had to move the ticket prices a little bit. Uh, that always hurts, but um, you know, you you do what's necessary. You're doing a great job. I already got my voting tickets today. They went on sale today. Here, shameless plug. Go see the Bodines. They're coming to Aurora. Um, I'll be in the seventh row. Um, so you're bringing in the axe, you know, different things. Um,

so I I commend uh Alderman Seville. You know, it it's it's hard. You know, do do you want to raise prices by a dollar or do you want to in a way hide it and attacks and that's kind of what you're doing it. Um, I have a little bit little bit of experience with Evston. Evston has other things. Of course, Evston has a university. They're building a new stadium. So, uh, that's a whole different ballgame. Uh, there's a reason they have that there. Uh, Chicago, of course, is a different beast with their their things, but, um, unfortunately, I have teenagers, so I'm real experienced. Uh, my kids were at the Salt Shed two nights ago, the Aragon Ballroom 10 days ago. They're there all the time. your ticket prices are very very I mean they're better. They are um and you don't have to pay for all that parking. You don't have to you know all that other craziness. Um so I commend you in what you're doing. It it's a tough cell. Um I I I think it may be better if we go this route to hide it in attacks if we go this route. Um cuz anytime you say, you know, okay, we we rose ticket, we increased ticket prices and now we're increasing them again. So that that's that's a bad look. Um because we just did it. So, okay, we're going to bump it another dollar. Um then people feel like, okay, they're they're really trying to reach in my pocket. Um, so this is a very interesting alternate civil uh

approach. Um, but I I think it could have some merit. Any other comments or questions? Alderman Mesakos. Yeah, just one one more one more question for clarification here. On all the tickets that are comped, do you still have to collect a dollar on them then? I would hope not. I mean, how would we find that out? I mean, what's and and when we write the ordinance, we would have to write it so they don't [clears throat] they don't include comp ticket prices.

And there there could be a world where AKA does its own ordinance, too. I mean, we have the ability to institute resolutions and ordinances and we could it could be simpler if it you wanted us to do it instead. I think that you need to be al controlling your own ship. I really do believe that and I know you have been. Uh but especially in a time like this. Um if we're going to be ask if you're going to be raising prices at the same time, we're also discussing about adding a $1 tax. It means maybe you're not controlling your ship as well 100%. Because you could actually just raise your price another dollar at this this juncture while we figure out how to work out maybe an amusement tax down the road if at all. So I'm that's that's all I think I said it. Anybody else on this one before we go forward with a vote? I mean, my my main thing is that if we're going to vote to move money, then we need to approve some form of tax and and we'll get staff working on a proposal soon and bring it to finance and we can do it. Uh I just can't we can't have seven people vote to fund it and then five only vote to approve the the funding mechanism. Alderman Franco. So I just want to say that the whole community, the Chicagoland area knows that EKA needs help. Chicago downtown theaters are also going through the same thing. So raising ticket prices is the nature of the beast that we're in right now. I think everybody's going to understand that if we do this tax, it could take a little heat off a because city of Aurora is doing it, not a you could actually split up the responsibility and the reasons why you're doing it. If we do the tax and

AKA's flush, we can keep that in a fund for years for that one rainy day. So I think the hybrid of them raising and us doing this would work out very well for a number of reasons. That is we evolve into whatever we need to whether we we're flush or we need more money. We're going to have that fund there going forward. So I I think it's pretty good. I don't think anybody's going to complain about it because everybody knows the arts need to be sustained. They understand the cost and I think that's been believe me I was at the Jeff Awards and they all said the same thing. We got to make sure the Paramount does well. We're going to do whatever we can. Their their ticket price are relatively low. So everybody understands that. So I think what we're talking about is an easy one. I don't think that's a problem at all. But I think the hybrid between them raising a little bit, us doing it is probably the better way to go because we can always keep that rainy day fun in case they don't need it for the time that they do. So I I just think it's a pretty good way to go.

Any other comments or questions? Almanuel, you're back. Yes. So have you announced your ticket prices what the raise on the ticket prices are? We have not announced our 26 27 season yet. We'll be doing that in January. Okay. So, if a ticket price is $65 or you're going to increase it to $65, you could technically just increase it to 66 and nobody would know the difference. That's correct. Thank you. And so, your time frame is beginning of the year. [clears throat] What about the subscriptions? Is there a plan? Well, we we revealing the big show.

We're going to announce the next extension, A Million-Dollar Quartet, next week. So, and that's going to be a $75 ticket. That's our plan. 75. We've gone from 65 to 70 to now 75. Um, for this next ex limited engagement. And then for Broadway, we announced January 19th, our next season. 26 27. We announced at the Gayla, we're going to announce our our four Broadway shows. We've already uh come up with pricing for that. Um, looked at the other theaters and tried to benchmark and we have all of that. It's set. And that's about a 20% increase for we did a 20% increase this year and we're doing I think it's about a 3% for this next year additional 3%. Um so it's a it's a substantial increase and they they they will see that but they're you know subscribers and uh they've been with us for a long time. I think they they know the value. They know that we're um maybe under market uh and deliberately so because we're trying to drive volume to downtown. So, um, we're going to be pushing market rate for, it's interesting, the theaters have really jacked their prices up recently, and that's what we learned where the top ticket price at some of our competitive theaters were um, you know, upper 90s, now they're pushing 130, 140. It's uh, so everyone is moving. I think it's going to be the death of some theaters. Um, we're not going to go that aggressive, but uh, 20% is I mean, our top ticket price was 87, now it's 103. um that's not including fees. So, it's not it's not a small jump. Um so, we're but we're pushing that way because we think we think uh our demand will uh not be constant, but it's not not going to be dramatically impacted.

Okay. No other questions? There's been a motion, a second. We're only voting on the amendment uh as as proposed by Alderman Seville. Uh I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Yes. Garza, yes. No. Nunes. Yes. Franco. Yep. Seville. Yes. Beno, no. Smith. Yes. Bog. Yes. Fade. Yes. Larson. No. White. Yes. Nine. Yes. Three. No.

Okay. The amendment carries uh to increase the budget line item by 400,000. Now we have the uh agenda item itself uh 25946 to adopt the uh fiscal year 2026 budget. Uh is there a motion to approve it with or we already have a motion a second to approve the budget? Um any other questions, discussions regarding the ordinance? Alderman Franco.

So, I want to [clears throat] make a little statement about this budget. Um, it was a little bit disappointing when this came out initially. When the mayor puts out his first few paragraphs about what he sees and we talked about no more handouts to corporations, I want to remind people that money that we incentivized uh various corporations had a component of a of a rate of return. So, it really wasn't a handout. I think that was very misleading and misrepresentative. Um it's also a little bit hypocritical when we mention no more patronage. Um I think that this administration is litter with patronage. So when we tell the community we don't have patrons or no more, it's kind of hypocritical in that we literally have a person working for us who got a job because they campaigned for mayor to create a primary for this mayor and they got a job. So, I I don't like when we put statements in there that's really not true and it doesn't represent the community. I'm not very happy that the funds in my opinion and a couple other people's opinions were excessively funded from the general fund to maybe create a deficit and we're fighting that right now. And I still think we have questions about how that happened. when when we portray uh our budget problem as greater than the great recession and the entities that either uh do our auditing or give us awards or our bond ratings don't see this coming as greater than the great recession I find that very confusing um and I I don't think overall and we talk about a budget representing values I don't think this budget represents the values of the people that I represent certainly the majority of them and I was very disappointed when there was a presentation last week about six I guess capital projects that are prioritized for 2026 and one wasn't a sound barrier that the last administration I have been working on for eight years and the mayor campaigned on and yet it's not a priority. So for those reasons and a lot more I I can't

vote for this budget. I don't think it represents the people that I represent their values and their priorities. So I'll be voting no on this budget. Questions comments before casting a vote? Okay, no further questions. I'll ask clerk to please call the role. Barrera, yes. Garza, yes. Miss Yianos, yes. Nunes, no. Franco, no. Seville, yes. Benos, yes. Smith, no. No. Bug, yes. Bade, no. Larson, yes. White, yes. Eight, yes. Four, no.

Motion carries. This ordinance is adopted. Uh, next [clears throat] we have one more uh agenda item 2550954 capital of the um tax levy. Uh, got it. Yep. Two more. Two more. So, let's do the SSA first. I have the clerk read the SSA one, then we'll go to the tax levy. 25954. An ordinance levying certain special service area taxes for the fiscal year January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2025. Special service area 90. So move. Is there a second? Mayor. Sure.

Yeah. I'd like to make a motion to amend 25-0954. Um I'd like to utilize W4 fund balance to cover the $11,3154 balance that would have been levied on those W4 residents for this SSA90. Can you say that again? Let's take just a minute. work with legal here. I'm gonna use war for the 44 fund balance to cover the remaining of the SSA90. Good idea for the next two years for the remaining balance. Very nice. So that motion should be

actually right. Do you want to start or do you have any any questions Stacy? So just to understand the you want to use ward funds for the SSA to cover the remaining balance of the SSA remaining. So this SSA um originally the ward um paid for the project and um the properties were paying back the ward.

Okay. So ultimately it would be if you it would be not levying this SSA. How many more years are left on it? Um it would be two we extended it. What was it? I think three three years just to make sure but it's two years remaining with um 11,000 let me get it here. 11,31544 is the remaining balance. So ultimately it would we wouldn't we could just stop collecting it. We wouldn't pass this um ordinance to levy the tax. Okay. So have you have questions?

We all Yeah. No. [laughter] I just want to make sure because this is the first time hearing of it and I I am not sure how if we skip a year on leving how that impacts the SSA overall if that's something that then we we lose. I just I've just never dealt with that. And I would like to be able to talk to um our outside council that deals with the SSAs and make sure that because we have two two years left. So it would be 2026 and 2027. And I don't know that your work balance covers both years. Um but really what what it is is that this was a 20-year SSA.

Yes. it expired um tax levy 2024 or no tax levy 2023 payable in 2024. Then what happened was is the SSA um because you we had to re um

y renew it um based on the timing of when that happened, it was renewed at the beginning of 20 January of 2025. So, we didn't receive any um we couldn't levy a tax in 2024 payable in 2025. So, there's that gap. Um and then they extended it for I think it was like 3 years just to make sure we could get that 11, um 350. Should we table this then for now?

We can we can um postpone it till next week. But I think I think the issue that Stacy's bringing up is that property taxes are paid in the rears. So you you we're a year behind and so this levy is to cover a gap year between the renewal and um or or between the expiration and the renewal. So this doesn't cover 2025. This sorry I'm going to get the tax years mixed up here. This cover this covers 2025 not the the it's not moving into the future which is where your fund balances.

But but it wouldn't really his fund B it this SSA just pays back his ward. It's my fund balance out of it's so he wouldn't basically he wouldn't get this $11,000 into his ward over the next two years. So Should we ask a question differently because this is going to take some sorting out and it's 10:14. Um, can can we hold this levy item to the next meeting, the next regular city council meeting to address this issue? We can do that. Yeah. Okay. Can you work with legal and finance to come up with a plan that works? Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Yes.

So, uh, if you'd like to make a motion, there's been a there's been a motion to approve, but no second. If Alderman Frank would like to withdraw his motion, if you want to make a motion to table it, we can table it till the motion to postpone till till next Tuesday would be appropriate. So I'll withdraw my motion to free up his new motion and I will make a motion to postpone this until next Tuesday when we meet again. Is there a second? Second. Second. So there's a motion to postpone until the next meeting and a second by Alderman Barrero. Any questions? Discussion. Alderman Bug.

Yeah. Um that's uh I just I my question is on um procedure and where the funds will come from. Uh alder manic funds uh depending on where they're coming from have to go through the finance committee and they're capped at a certain amount. So that's um that's part of my is so I I I need I think that Stacy and I need a little time to work through this. This is the first we're hearing of it and I just I just need

So we just want to make sure everything can go. Yes. I I want to make sure that we're procedurally we are doing this correctly. I And I just want to I just need a little time. It is 10:15. I'm hangry now. And um [laughter] And frankly, you just made open mind block. Yeah. Yes, I'm sure I have. So, they'll figure it out if it needs to go. So, I just I just want a little breathing room. So, if you know I think there's a motion in a second for a to postpone it a week and that would give us the breathing room. I just want to make sure that was taken into consideration the fact that it has to go to without calling our chief of staff over.

Okay. So, there's a motion and a second. Uh, I'll ask clerk, please call the role to postpone this agenda item 2550954. Barrera, yes. Garza, yes. Messianos, yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes. Seville, yes. Benuelos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes.

12, yes. Zero, no. Okay, we've we had a motion and a second already on agenda item 2550875, the tax levy. Uh it was moved to the end of the unfinished business, which is where we're at. Uh are there any other questions or uh comments on this agenda item? There being none, I will ask the clerk to please call the role. Ferrero. Yes. May real quick.

Agenda item 2550875. This is the the tax the levy that was there was a motion and a second earlier and then a motion by Alderman Bug to move it uh to the end of unfinished business which we are now at. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Tabby from Barero Garza. No. Yes. Nunes. No. Franco. No. Seville. Yes. Benuelos. Yes. Smith. No. Bug. Yes.

Bade. No. Larson. Yes. White. No. Seven. Yes. Five. No. Motion carries. Uh, this agenda item is approved. There's a the bills. We got to pay the bills. Uh there's no more reports. Uh next uh we agenda item is 251 0005. The bill summary large bill list. Is there a motion to approve the bills as presented? Motion was made by Alderman Franco. Second. Second by Alderman White or sorry, Alderman Larson. Are there any questions or discussions on the bills? No. There's no no questions on the bills. Will the clerk please call the role? Yes. Garza, yes. Yes. Nunes, yes. Franco, yes.

Seville, yes. Benos, yes. Smith, yes. Bug, yes. Bade, yes. Larson, yes. White, yes. 12, yes, zero, no. Motion carries. There's no need for a closed session. Motion to adjurnn. Was there a motion to adjurnn? Motion made by Alderman Franco, seconded by Alderman Seville. All in favor? I. Anybody opposed and want to stay here to 10:19? Motion carries. Meeting is adjourned at 10:19 p.m.