City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the September 1st Naperville City Council meeting. Roll call.

Worley.

Here.

Gibson. Here. Holzhauer.

Here.

Jane. Here. Kelly. McBroom. Here. Syed.

Here.

White.

Here.

Wilson.

Here. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. As we begin tonight, I want to recognize our city clerk, Dawn Portner, as this will be her last meeting as an employee of the city of Naperville. After a decade of service, she has served in various roles, and Dawn will be moving on to lead the Downtown Naperville Alliance as its next executive director. I want to thank you, Dawn, for your continued dedication to Naperville, and we look forward to working with you, or working you, I guess, in your new capacity. representing downtown. Thank you. I also want to introduce Miranda Barfuss, who will be filling the role of city clerk beginning September 11th. She'll be sworn in on that day. Miranda joined the city in 2020, and for the past six years, she's worked with community organizations, elected officials, commissions, residents, and departments across the entire city. We look forward to working with you, Miranda, as you take on this new role, and we know you're going to do a great job. First item on the agenda this evening is public forum. I'd like to remind everyone of the citizen participation rules in the city's municipal code for speaking at city council meetings. Speakers are asked to present their comments in a respectful and courteous manner. Speakers should stay on topic and be cognizant of their words. Personal attacks on council members, staff, other speakers, or members of the audience are not allowed. If inappropriate language or comments are expressed during this meeting, you will be asked immediately to stop commenting. Also, for audience members, there is no cheering and no jeering. Actions such as applauding, cheering, finger snapping, booing, or any other noises during or at the conclusion of any remarks made by any speaker are not allowed. If this occurs, you will be asked to stop immediately, and if it continues to persist, it will recess the meeting until the audience abides by the rules in our city code. No speaker should ever feel intimidated by the crowd. Audience disruption is meant to intimidate those speaking, and I will not allow it in the chambers. Audience members with signs. A sign must not block any other audience member's view. Speakers are given three minutes to address the City Council. To help speakers stay within the three-minute time frame, we have a timer located on the side and dais to your right. It will give the visual cue when the three minutes are expiring. This will help the speakers conclude their comments in a timely manner without being cut off. The timer will buzz when it hits zero, and we will alert the speaker that their time is up. If a speaker's name is called and they are not in the room, we will move on to the next speaker and we will not go back. Speakers are encouraged to remain in council chambers until the conclusion of public forum in the event council members want to ask follow-up questions. Also, when your name is called, please come and have a seat in the front row. Mrs. Schatz, please call the speakers.

There are six speakers signed up for public forum. The first speaker is Shannon Cottrell, followed by John Doyle, Bob Carlson, and Joe Huss.

Hi, good evening. I'm coming to talk about the District 203 bus issue that we're having. I know I've emailed many of you multiple times, and I appreciate some of you getting back to me. We're looking at elementary-age kids being asked to spend almost two hours, in my kids' case, two hours and 15 minutes, on a bus in the morning to get from the middle of Naperville to Bethany Lutheran School. I emailed the district a couple of times with questions such as, who's keeping these kids safe? How are children who are 10, maybe 11 at most, expected to sit on a bus for two hours without distractions, access to a bathroom, being able to say what they need to say and move around when they're supposed to remain calm and sitting on a bus? Unfortunately, as I said, I've reached out to many of you because I haven't received a response from the district. Initially, to my email, I received something that was about their carbon action plan and keeping bus rides to an hour at most. Well, none of that's happening. And when I asked about safety on the bus, such as my son who's ADHD and autistic, He needs to be able to move. So who is on the bus monitoring him and keeping him from distracting other riders? Who's keeping the other riders from picking on him because he repeats himself when he tries to keep himself calm? What is the district going to do to keep these kids safe? And I haven't received a response. I know that you guys don't deal so much with the district, but I'm one of many parents who just can't let their kids ride the bus in the morning. And to be cynical about it, it appears that that's what the district's trying to do, is to cut down on the number of kids that are utilizing the bus so they can put a win in their carbon action plan. Oh look, look at all the buses we've saved because these kids aren't riding anymore. So that's what I came here to say. Hopefully we can find some kind of solution in the near future.

Thank you.

Next speaker. The next speaker is John Doyle.

John Doyle, Naperville resident. Thank you. Sorry I couldn't stay full-time last session, but there were some pretty big statements made on the record by the city that I wanted to revisit. You know, if over the history of the utility, the cost has equal rates and our rates are currently undercharging, doesn't that mean at some point we're going to have to overcharge for everything to balance out? Isn't that the only way for both those statements to be true? So that, of course, begs the question, at what point over the history of the utility do you plan on having rates be high enough to overcharge? The undercharging is not a recent thing. Each of the last four rate studies have shown that our projected revenues would be below cost of service. So aren't we committing to overcharging people in the future? And the second question would be, is that strategy considered good governance and a proper way to set rates for municipal owned utility? Regardless, it has big implications on our energy procurement decision, and here's why. It was also mentioned that for at least one month in particular, the undercharging explained the difference between our price and ComEd's. Remember several months ago when I said affordability is a policy choice that has very little to do with our energy procurement? This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The price difference here is because of policy choices we make on how to operate our utility, not because of our partnership with IMEA. As the mayor pointed out, the cost of the utility can be split into energy procurement, which is the big purple part, and the cost of running utilities, which is everything else. Our PPA, by design, ensures we are recovering the exact full cost of energy procurement and our IMEA bills are paid in full every month on time. So any undercharging that's happening has to exist within the costs of running the utility. You know, no one wants us to sell to ComEd, and we're not asking for you to do another rate study before committing to an energy plan. In fact, I think we finally have everything we need to get a commitment at the workshop. We just want the record to be honest about why our rates are lower than ComEd's. To claim it's because of our deal with IMEA simply isn't true. We are cheaper because of how we operate our utility. Here's what I would have paid last year, 2025, under ComEd versus what I actually paid in Naperville. My power costs with IMEA are actually higher than they would have been with ComEd, even though my total bill is lower. You have to evaluate the suppliers on their own merits, not just look at the final bill. We can take these cost-saving measures that we have for the utility to any supplier, including PJM market participation. This is why you can't just look at one bill and the other bill and point at the small one. It's more complicated than that. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Bob Carlson, followed by Joe Huss and Scott Lee.

Good evening. My name is Bob. Climate alarmists, some in attendance this evening, regularly warn of a cataclysmic future if we don't act now. Doomsayers have been predicting climate disasters for eons. Al Gore's preposterous, now false, prediction in 2008 could be Exhibit A. Not one of these apocalyptic predictions has ever come true. Go back to the 1980s. Acid rain was killing lakes and forests, read a New York Times headline. The coverage of this pending disaster was relentless. I was there, heard it all. All the maple trees in the Northwest were expected to be dead in a decade. Maple syrup, gone. It never happened. Hypocrisy runs parallel with some of the alarmists. In 2021, Jeff Bezos traveled into space. Replying to an inquisitive newspaper reporter on the brief trip, He enthusiastically replied, fill her up, I want to go again. Note he didn't say charge her up. He needs liquid rocket fuel, not windmills. In that same paper, Mr. Bezos spoke negatively about fossil fuels. Which is it, Jeff? Not mentioned in this irresponsible sprint to eliminating all fossil fuels are two key points central to current and future Naperville residents. First, clean wholesale natural gas prices are 60% less than they were 20 years ago. Can you think of anything else costing less now, let alone 60% less? And second, our current power supplier owns their own resources and they offer municipalities attractively priced long-term contracts. This allows them to deliver more affordable energy prices to Naperville residents. Prices that are 20 to 30% less at least for now, than what ComEd charges in nearby suburbs. I'm not anti-renewables, but be reasonable. Why mandate future deadlines of where we must be? Imagine going to Henry Ford's parents when Henry was only six years old. Mr. and Mrs. Ford, we need young Hank to perfect the automobile production line by the time he's 10. Four years from now, we can't wait. William and Mary would have probably exchanged a brief glance, then said in unison, We're not there yet. Can we lighten up with the hair-on-fire mentality that accompanies so much of this relentless and at times questionable environmental agenda? I ask these supercharged environmentalists to maintain their energy. Puns intended. However, adding just a fraction of common sense, frugalness, and reality to your messaging would elevate the substance and tolerance of your position. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members, for this opportunity to speak. I yield back.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next three speakers are Joe Huss, Scott Lee, and Tim Ferrito.

I'm Joe Huss, a NIST volunteer, and I'm building on the strategy team's presentation from the last meeting, and I'll focus on three items. Regarding the energy market, solar and battery continue to dominate the first half of this year. However, my message isn't that we should select a technology today, but that we should recognize that the electricity market is changing rapidly. Solar generation has grown by more than 1,000% in the last decade and battery by more than 4,000% in just the last five years. As technology and policy evolve, flexibility is more useful than trying to predict what the market will look like in a few decades. That's why it's important for the city to agree on a vision before comparing specific options. One potential vision is to provide affordable, reliable electricity while preserving future flexibility and advancing Naperville's sustainability goals. The wording is intentionally broad. It doesn't preselect a supplier or technology. It gives counsel a durable standard for judging choices today while protecting future counsel's ability to respond to new information. To implement that vision, we recommend hiring an expert to support this infrequent, high-value decision. An expert could provide deep market knowledge and understanding of specialized commercial risks and experience with the energy selection process. An advisor should support the city's decision-making process but not make the decision for it. The MDR RFP highlights why expertise is valuable. We did a few things with that RFP that likely drove up prices. Vendors were given just five months from award to negotiate a three-party contract with IMEA and begin delivering power. By comparison, IMEA proposed 10 years notice. Just as I don't think 10 years notice is appropriate, I don't think five months notice is either. For context, the fastest new generation projects typically take two to three years and replacing a new supplier three to four years. An experienced advisor could help determine a practical schedule. Finally, here are some criteria that we could use to evaluate vendors. I grouped the criteria into five categories. What will it cost? Will it be reliable? Can we adapt to market changes? Is it sustainable? And what is the governance? Clear criteria would help staff focus on the critical information they need to collect. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Scott Lee followed by Tim Ferrito.

Hello. Hello. Good evening, everyone. My name's Scott. Longtime resident of Naperville. Some of you guys might not remember my name, but certainly I look familiar to you probably. You certainly know where I live, which is right on the edge of the proposed Naperville Ridge development project. So I want to use my time today to kind of talk about some of the potentially unidentified wetlands that are included in the parcel. So some significant portion of wetlands were not identified or evaluated in the wetland determination included in the preliminary stormwater management report. There are two additional areas observed on the property that contain unmarked wetlands. These areas have not been fully surveyed, nor were these areas included in the preliminary stormwater report. Neighbors have observed vegetation and standing water similar to those associated with the wetlands that are already identified and verified. According to the soil data map, these unidentified areas contain some of the same soil types as the identified and existing wetlands. So before we, so we're asking the council to kind of vote no when that proposal comes up until, you know, we've done a comprehensive analysis of the area. Also, last time, two weeks ago, I brought up that my wife had started an online petition opposing this proposed project, and it had, at the time, had garnered over $2,700. you know, signatures, right? So I'm pleased to report that with two weeks, after two weeks, the number has gone over 3,100. So that's an increase of over 10% within the last two weeks. So, yeah, thanks for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The final speaker in public forum is Jim Ferrito.

Good evening, Tim Ferrido, Naperville resident. I'm here tonight to talk about the rate study performed by consultant UFS versus the actual financials of Naperville Electric Utility. I will say right off the bat that for 2025, Naperville Electric's financials were far better than what the rate study was projecting. In fairness, some of this is due to a rate hike that Naperville Electric had. Furthermore, I think it was premature to talk about a 24% correction factor without going through the financials in detail. Let's look at the comparison between Naperville Electric and UFS's projection. Again, UFS is a consultant that did the right study. I'm just going to cover a few of these. So for net income, UFS was projecting minus 6.3 million the actual came in at $15.4 million. That's a difference of $21.7 million. The annual cash position, while UFS was projecting, would drop by $12.9 million. It actually went up by $0.5 million. So that's a difference of $13 million. Next, I want to highlight the debt coverage ratio. Naperville doesn't have a lot of bonds, so that coverage ratio is pretty high. So UFS is projecting 3.56. It turned out to be 15.6. OK. So right now I want to look at the bond debt between ComEd and Naperville. So Naperville in 2025 had a bond debt of about $13.5 million. In contrast, ComEd had a bond debt of about $12.9 billion. That's principal face value debt. Of course, ComEd is a lot bigger than Naperville Electric. So I tried to do this based on megawatt hours served. And basically, if you look at it that way, ComEd is 14 times greater than Naperville Electric. And the reason I bring this up, if you want to increase your cash position, you could increase your debt load. Right now, like I said, Naperville has a very low debt load. This last table here mimics what's in the rate study. I just want to look at the first, the residential rate. The cost of service they were projecting was 82.9. The actual came in at 77.1, only a difference of 7%. But the residential at 82.9 is a little bit high. It needs to be corrected for the actual financials. Thank you.

Speaker's time is up.

Thank you. Any more speakers?

Up next is City Council Public Forum. As a reminder, per the code, council members have three minutes to speak during public forum. You can speak up to two times. Councilman McBroom.

Thank you, Mayor. So I just need some clarification on a vote that we had last meeting. And based on answers to my questions, maybe I'll be pulling the minutes, but it looks like we have residents that pulled the minutes anyway, so I don't know if it's on this topic, but so, and I'm not, just wanna be clear, pure clarity, I'm not looking to accuse anyone to make a mistake or doing something wrong, but in regards to the parking fund that we all voted unanimously on to shift from capital or general funds to, or pay for these routine maintenance costs from the parking fund, We had a memo on it, we got meeting minutes on it, we've got a tape on it, and I'm still not entirely clear. And the reason why I'm gonna ask these series of questions, directors, is I just, I think we may have set a precedent here, and I just wanna make sure that we're not putting in motion something that has ripple effects. So, you know, as far as the precedent, and we did get a memo that we have been, you know, doing routine maintenance on parking decks, you know, through the general fund.

And that was corrected by us, or we decided to change it.

So I just want to make, first of all, clear, does the city agree, were we doing something incorrect there? And if not, did we make a preference change, or did we correct an error?

Mr. Krieger?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A few questions in there. First off, did we correct an error? Was there an error made? I would say no. The downtown parking fund can be used up to. We are under no obligation to use it for any. The second, with respect to the action taken last meeting, I took that as specific to the agenda item itself, which in that case was elevator maintenance, where we did make a shift in the funding sources for that maintenance item. I will tell you that discussions around this are continuing, but that answers kind of your questions today.

Okay.

And that was my concern, and that's why I'm bringing it up. We can look, I mean, the minutes are getting pulled anyway, that the language in the minutes is this is how we were going to fund it moving forward. We saw a memo that, according to kind of handling it this way, I guess it was millions in the past, and there was even a suggestion we'd claw that back. I mean, I wouldn't support that. But anyway, my main concern is, Do we need to clarify what the intention of the food and beverage parking? Was it for major renovations, a new parking deck? We will be talking about a new parking deck next year. And if the minutes reflect that this is how we're going to do this moving forward, and if it's cost millions in the past, Are we setting a precedent that we're gonna be drawing down millions from a parking fund, which we might need? I just wanna be clear on that. Were we correcting just for one item, or are we correcting moving forward? And I think you've answered my question, and if we need to correct the minutes, we can, so.

Okay, Councilman Sayah. Thank you, Mayor. So as you all know, summer is a busy time for everyone, including the road closures and the construction. So I've been getting a lot of emails, text messages, social media posts about Naperville road closures on 59, 248, 95th, Book Road, a lot of things. So just wanted to have a high-level update from the team, from the staff, to see what are the timeline and when it is going to complete and share some thoughts on that. Thank you.

Thank you. So the work being done right now in Illinois Route 59, which is a state of Illinois highway, is part of the state's roadway maintenance, much like we do our own roadway maintenance programs every year, they do theirs as well. So that is basically patching of the concrete, and then they're going to actually do resurfacing with asphalt. So that work goes from McCoy South to, I think, Artesian. They're expecting to finish that by the, end of october so that will continue through the next two months with that you'll see you know changing closures daily lane closures to do the work in the specific areas that they're working on the other three roadways that you mentioned are all part of the water link project being done by the dupage water commission so while those are on City of Naperville roadways. That is a water commission project. As far as Book Road goes, that's obviously been the one that's been most impactful to everybody for the whole summer. So One Piece did reopen on Friday. That is the portion of Book Road from 75th to Rickert. So the small section north of 75th. The benefit of that is that we should see some relief along those intersections along 75th Street. I know Plainfield-Naperville has been having some congestion, so that should improve there. And then as far as the other pieces, they are expecting to be able to open the portion from 75th to 83rd Street by the end of this month, so by the end of September. And then 83rd to 87th, their timeline's less certain on that, but it will be reopened yet this year, so I'd say later in the fall. and then 87th Street to 95th Street, we do have southbound traffic only, and that's mainly to serve local traffic only for the residents who live there, but we won't see all those lanes reopened until later this year as well.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to highlight a few good news stories in the community. I think when people come to City Council, a lot of times they only hear about the toughest issues, the ones that we have a divided vote on. But a few things I was really proud of in the last month. One, you know, the Riverwalk Commission there, you know, It was brought up that the benches that we have on the Riverwalk are not the easiest for seniors and people with limited mobility to get out of. So there was a proposal for a new kind of bench, which aesthetically didn't look like the rest of the Riverwalk, but functioned. And what I thought was really great was there was a very productive discussion about it, and people, I think, our representative from North Central actually went and found a vendor that could find a bench that both aesthetically fit and would be helpful to our seniors. And I thought that was just a great example of volunteers in the community working together and solving a problem. Also, you're gonna hear later tonight, one of the developers is proposing Naperville's newest development, has worked together with our city staff, suggestions from Naperville Settlement, me, thank you very much for the help. But one of the proposals of that development is going to be to have a street to honor Candace Parker, right, who Naperville's greatest pro basketball player actually just inducted into the Hall of Fame. Again, community effort to honor one of Naperville's heroes. And a final one, many Naperville residents, hundreds, participated in a survey done by an outside contractor TO PREPARE A BIKE PLAN, WHICH WILL BE UNVEILED TO THE PUBLIC AT THIS WEEK'S TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING. AMAZING PRESENTATIONS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY WEBSITE. I THINK IT'S REALLY GOING TO MAKE THE CITY BETTER FOR A GENERATION. AND A NUMBER OF LEADERS, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, THE HEADS OF, I'M GOING TO MISS SOME HERE, DNA, head of DAC, head of NDP, and so many other organizations came out and just walked the downtown path just to see what it's like for people in little ways that things could be improved. You know, hey, a sign here has got an arrow pointing in the wrong direction, or this particular crossing could be a little bit better. We forward that on to the contractor that's doing the report. But I just bring all of these things up to say we have so many volunteers, so many hard workers in the city who are doing the right thing and helping out. And I'm just proud to live here. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilwoman Jean.

Thank you, Mary. I wanted to thank Mr. Huss for his presentation and for the suggestion of a new statement and possible criteria as well as the suggestion of an expert in the area that might assist with the workshop. And I know last meeting we ran We ran long. And so we didn't really, Councilwoman Gibson and I in a discussion addressed how we didn't really get a chance to talk about the details of the workshop. So Mayor or Mr. Krueger, are we going to have time today to talk more in detail about that workshop or have suggestions such as what Mr. Huss provided today?

Mr. Krueger. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you for the question. Do we have time? That is completely up to you. I mean, I can tell you that our plan, our group has been working on the agenda. Our plan is to send out materials in advance to council to collect some early information to improve the efficiency of the actual workshop, hoping that we can kind of lock in on vision. But Mr. Huss's presentation was great. And it tracks very much with kind of my thoughts. And I don't think we will miss anything that Mr. Huss would like in the presentation.

Could I have a follow-up question? Go ahead. Mr. Krueger, so as of right now, we are not foreseeing the need of an expert to help facilitate it. We will be using our staff.

For the workshop, that is correct, yes.

For the 25th workshop?

Yes. Okay. Down the line, that's absolutely an option.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mary. Just wanted to quick say thank you, Shannon, for following up with regard to your son. It's obviously really disappointing, I guess, to say the least, for him to spend over two hours on a bus. So as you know, typically, council, school boards, et cetera, don't really get involved, but I'll certainly follow up. With regard to Mr. Huss' suggestion, for people that weren't aware or here at the time, we did have a, I don't know, what I would consider an expert, come and speak from CES during the PUAB energy presentations. We could, I don't know, as part of that suggestion, I'd offer to bring their presentation into our discussion for whatever we talk about during the workshop. So, thank you.

Thank you. I want to speak to the first speaker we had in public forum. That would be Ms. Cottrell. I appreciate your words tonight, and I'm sorry what you're going through with your presentation. your children and the extended bus rides. I can tell you that the city manager and myself have expressed our concerns and your concerns to the superintendent of schools. I think that it's important that the city, under the guise of the autism-friendly community that we're trying to project here and aspire to be, really looks at this from the perspective of how we can get all these different government agencies to work together, especially on something like this when it involves children and being on the school buses for extended hours, especially those who have special needs. So thank you and I look forward to hopefully working with city professional staff on some sort of resolution that we can work with on the school district side. Okay, seeing no other public forum, the next item is the consent agenda. May I have a motion to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda? Councilman White. May I move to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda? Second.

Second, Oldsauer.

All those in favor sign aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes 8-0. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda removing I-1, I-9, I-11, and I-12.

Councilman White. I move to approve the consent agenda removing items I-1, I-9, I-11, and I-12. Councilman Holzhauer.

Second, Holzhauer.

Mrs. Schatz, please read the consent agenda removing I-1, I-9, 11, and 12.

Approval of the City Council meeting schedule for September, October, and November 2026. APPROVAL OF THE AWARD OF THE COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT FOR FIRE STATION 4 GARAGE FLOOR RESTORATION TO GARLAND TBS FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $119,824. APPROVAL OF THE AWARD OF THE COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT FOR DEBTBOOK FINANCIAL SOFTWARE TO 5TH ASSET INCORPORATED FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $137,326.03 FOR A TWO-YEAR TERM. Approval of the award of the sole source procurement for Tyler Pace and Tyler Assist Basic to Tyler Technologies for an amount not to exceed $100,851.07 for a one-year term. Approval of the award of change order number two to the work order for engineering services for central elevated water tank relocation to Baxter and Woodman for an amount not to exceed $8,505 in an additional two years. Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for pay by phone mobile application to pay by phone technologies for an amount not to exceed $51,000 for a six month term. Approval of the award of change order number one to the contract for architectural and engineering services to Kluber Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $52,800. PASSING THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROLS AND ISSUING A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT FOR THE NAPERVILLE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL MARCHING BAND COMPETITION SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2026. AND ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION APPROVING PRIOR UNAPPROVED CLOSED SESSION MEETING MINUTES DESIGNATING CERTAIN CLOSED SESSION MEETING MINUTES AS NON-RESTRICTED AND CONTINUING TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF ALL OTHER RESTRICTED CLOSED SESSION MEETING MINUTES.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE COUNCIL CONSENT AGENDA AS READ. ROLL CALL.

Aye. Holzhauer? Aye. Jane? Aye. McBroom?

Aye.

Syed? Aye. White?

Aye.

Wilson? Aye. Worley?

Yes. Motion passes 8-0. Next item, I-1.

Item I-1 is a recommendation to approve the regular city council meeting minutes of August 18, 2026. There is one speaker, John Doyle.

John Doyle, Naperville resident. Thank you. I did not pull this for the same reason as Mr. McGrune was talking, but I do support you in your efforts for clarity. You know, we all always agree on policy, but we definitely agree on process. So I'm here for similar reasons. I'd like to request a motion to amend to get some additional clarity added to the minutes regarding the discussion of the utility situation. I know minutes are meant to be verbatim, but I feel like these three statements in particular were important enough that they need to be captured. After all, the local news did find them important enough to quote them directly. So yeah, that's it. Thank you.

Councilman McBride.

Thank you, Mayor. So going back to the minutes that I, topic that I just referenced. So in the minutes regarding the downtown parking fund, council, okay, so.

Look close to your microphone, sir.

Should have brought my glasses here, sorry. So two things. Moving forward, staff can utilize the downtown parking fund for maintenance and new construction. So I just think there's two things that need to be clarified. One, in light of the fact that the city doesn't think that we were making an error doing this incorrectly, this appears to be just a preference change for this one item. And that we weren't directing you to move forward to spend money down from the parking deck fund. I guess council in the future could, COULD DECIDE TO DO THAT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. BUT AS FAR AS THE DIRECTION, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GIVING YOU DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD TO CHANGE THE WAY THAT WE'VE BEEN FUNDING IT IN THE PAST. AND I KNOW COUNCILMAN GIBSON REFERENCED THE TWO-THIRD, ONE-THIRD SPLIT. THAT'S NOT IN THERE. IT ALMOST READS LIKE WE'RE SAYING WE'RE TAKING IT ALL FROM THE PARKING FUND. I THINK THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE. IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CHOOSING FOR THIS ONE MAINTENANCE PROJECT, THAT THAT SHOULD BE IN THERE AS WELL.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Mayor. I recognize this item, we're talking specifically about the minutes, so I'm not sure how much we're talking about the parking fund or not, but my understanding of that item was I had worked with City Manager Krieger ahead of the meeting who asked if he could word the motion to make sure that we didn't hold up any contracts, that historically parking garage maintenance is two-thirds from that fund, one-third from capital projects. I'm not sure why roofing was treated different from other maintenance projects and that was the question I raised over emails in the Q&A and in the meeting. Also to what happened in the actual meeting, I clarified whether we would be putting all of the funds from the parking maintenance or a ratio. So I'm all for clarifying that. I don't think this motion changes any rules or precedents. The fund was set up to cover two-thirds of parking garage maintenance, and the initial question was why roofing would be treated different than any other maintenance done at the parking garage. Hopefully that clarifies it.

Councilman Alzar.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I appreciate that we're bringing this to light. So I just want to be very clear. There's a page in the budget from last year and every other year that I've been on council. It is titled, quote, downtown parking deck maintenance. And there's a dollar figure allocated for THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND AND THE DOWNTOWN PARKING FUND. AND EVERY SINGLE YEAR THIS COUNCIL HAS VOTED IN BUDGET SEASON FOR EXACT TO THE PENNY TWO-THIRDS, ONE-THIRDS SPLIT. SO IF WE'RE DEVIATING FROM THAT OR USING CREATIVE ACCOUNTING TO GET AWAY FROM THAT, I JUST DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. I THINK THAT IS A SYSTEMIC ISSUE WE NEED TO LOOK AT. AND IF IT TAKES ANOTHER VOTE, THEN I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT IN BUDGET SEASON. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I think the question before us is whether or not the minutes accurately reflect the statements that were made by the city manager. Mr. City Manager, are you comfortable in affirming those or would you prefer that this be tabled until the next meeting so you can confirm what was said or not said from the tape?

You know, I'm comfortable with the minutes as is. You know, again, their intention is to serve as a summary. We do retain the full transcript and audio and video.

Councilman McBroom. I'm fine. All right. Is there a motion to approve the regular city council minutes of the August 18th, 2026 meeting? Councilman White.

Mayor, I move to approve the regular city council meeting minutes of August 18th, 2026. Councilman Holzhauer.

Second, Holzhauer.

We have a motion and a second on I-1. Roll call.

Holzhauer. Aye. Jane. Aye. McBroom. Aye.

No.

Syed?

Aye.

White?

Aye.

Wilson? Aye. Worley?

Yes.

Gibson? Aye.

Motion passes 7-1. 9-9.

Item I-9 is recommendation to pass the ordinance authorizing the execution of a recapture agreement for the installation of storm sewer improvements as part of the 623 Willow Road offsite storm sewer plans. There are two speakers. The first speaker is Richard Phillips, followed by Patricia Pfister, and the petitioner is here and signed up for questions only.

Good evening, Mayor Worley and members of the council. My name is Richard Phillips. I live at 643 Willow Road and I'm here tonight in support of my neighbors of 633 and 639 Willow Road. To ask you to deny the Willow Road recapture agreement on tonight's agenda. My wife sent a letter to Mr. DeSanto supporting our neighbor Patricia Pfister's opposition to this agreement. And I want to walk you through why. My wife and I built our home at 643 Willow, three doors down from the Patels, and we knew going in that this street sits close to the river with a very high water table. So we built up rather than down and said dig deep down. This option was available to the builder at 623 Willow Road 2. During construction, I stood with the owner looking at standing water in the excavation pit and told her directly she'd have water issues. This wasn't a surprise to anyone on this street. It was a known avoidable risk. This would be the city's first storm sewer recapture agreement. We've confirmed at least two other groundwater mitigation systems installed within two blocks of us over the years. In every case, the owner or builder who caused the problem paid for the fix. So this was never, I'm sorry, not once was an uninvolved neighbor asked to pay because a pipe passed near their land. This ordinance would break that pattern and nobody has explained why this case is different. I'd also ask you to look closely at the agreement itself. Recital 2 says the storm sewer improvements were installed at the owner and developer's sole expense. Recital 5 says that they only agreed to pay because the city would seek reimbursement from my neighbors. So this was never really at their sole expense. It was conditioned from the start on recovering nearly two-thirds of the cost from people who had no part in designing this project, no seat at the table, and no notice until the agreement was already drafted against their homes. That obligation would sit against their title for up to 20 years. My wife has spent over 30 years in residential mortgage and she's confirmed no appraiser would add dollar value to these homes because of this mitigation. My neighbors would bear the full cost permanently with no benefit to show for it. One of the two families affected has lived on this street since 1957. and includes a 92 and 96-year-old couple who have no input on any of this. Along with the merits of this argument, I think it could also be said that the optics do not look good. Four generations of Nate Pavilions have come out of this house. This is how we're going to treat them. I'd ask the council to deny this ordinance. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Patricia Pfister.

Good evening. Good evening, my name is Patricia Pfister. I live at 633 Willow Road and my parents live at 639 Willow Road. I'm here regarding agenda item nine, the proposed Willow Road storm sewer recapture agreement. I respectfully request that the council deny the agreement or at the very least defer it. The storm sewer extension project cost approximately $36,000. Ravi and Shawani Patel live at 623 Willow Road and M House built their home and its deep basement. This project was undertaken to correct the known and foreseeable flooding problems at the Patels' house. Yet the agreement assigns only one-third of the cost to the Patels, while nearly two-thirds, about $24,000 plus up to 20 years of interest, would be recorded against my home and my parents' home. That allocation is backwards. The extension stopped the flooding at the Patels' house and protected the use and value of their approximately $2 million property. Our homes have no flooding problem, and the project did not correct a problem on either one. The claimed benefit to our homes is that the storm sewer might be available if either property is redeveloped someday. But the nearly $12,000 assigned to each home is not based on any calculation of future benefit. it simply shifts to us the present cost of solving the Patels problem, a problem our homes don't have. And after years of interest, that amount might exceed the actual cost of any storm sewer work required in the future. Most importantly, the Patels and M House knew all along that the house was not connected to a storm sewer and that a connection was not included in part of the build. They knew this at the design stage, during excavation, throughout construction, and after completion. They also knew about the groundwater conditions. There was substantial standing water in the basement excavation. Water had to be pumped from the site and neighbors warned them about the high water table. Despite that knowledge, they proceeded with the deep basement design. When the resulting flooding continued impacting Willow Road, a city infrastructure project, their house, and neighboring property, the Patels were required to install the extension to stop the outpouring of the groundwater. The Patels received an immediate benefit, but now seek to shift nearly two-thirds of the cost with interest to neighbors who receive instead an immediate encumbrance on their homes. This would also be Naperville's first storm sewer recapture agreement. That is significant because two other storm sewer projects involving extensions and corrective work were completed within just a few houses of the Patels' home, and neither involved a recapture agreement. I have lived in my home for 25 years. My parents have lived there since 1957. We did not create this problem, request the project, or receive any present benefit from it. The decisions that created the need for this extension were made by the Patels of M House. The financial consequences of those decisions should now be transferred to neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilman McBride.

Thank you, Mayor. So you guys got me going here. If this is my property, I'd be upset too. Can the city explain to us why these homeowners should be expected to pay for this?

Deputy Director Hines. Sure.

Sure. So all the houses on Willow Road, they're already considered part of the city's storm sewer gap program. So what that means is that when a house either is reconstructed or there's a large addition, that they're required to put a storm sewer along their street frontage. So in this case, the property at 623, when they rebuilt their house, they did install that storm sewer in front of their frontage. Following construction, there was a number of drainage issues related to that, related to their sump pump discharge. They attempted to address that in various ways. It was still creating a nuisance. So their engineer looked at different approaches to try to deal with that drainage issue. The only feasible option was to extend the storm sewer to properties to the south to connect to the existing gap sewer that was in place. So that's kind of the background on how the storm sewer was installed. The properties that are adjacent, like I said, were already part of the GAP storm sewer system. In the future, if they redevelop, they would be required to install that gap in front of their house. So this recapture more or less advanced that solution so that the property owner could extend the storm sewer to the existing sewer that's in place, address the drainage issues, and then in the future, if these other two properties were to redevelop, they would be, the property owner would be able to recapture the costs associated with installing the storm sewer along that front edge.

The existing property owners that are paying now would be able to recapture from future development?

Correct.

Okay.

Is this common?

If we were to require the homeowner that's building to bear this cost, is that against code or would that be wrong?

So as far as the recapture goes, I mean, this is the first time we would be doing a recapture for storm sewer. But like I said, that obligation is, you know, like it would already be there if there was a teardown, you know, in accordance with our current city code.

WE DO HAVE THE PETITIONER ATTORNEY FOR QUESTIONS ONLY FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS. ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS?

THANK YOU, MA'AM. NOT A QUESTION FOR MS. HUGH BUT JUST SOME COMMENTS. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN GROOM. THOSE ARE EXCELLENT QUESTIONS, THE SAME ONES I ASKED THE STAFF. A LITTLE BIT TORN HERE. I'M PROTECTIVE OF STAFF'S PROCESS. TO BE HONEST, I THINK THEY'RE INTERPRETING THE CITY CODE CORRECTLY. I GET IT ON KIND OF A MICRO LEVEL IN A LEGALISTIC SENSE. I'M INTENDING TO VOTE NO, THOUGH, AND I'LL SHARE WHY. SO I GREW UP IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS ON, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FIRST DEVELOPMENTS AS NEIGHBORHOOD BECAME A BOOM TOWN. became very prime territory for tear downs. And there was a lot of consternation in the neighborhood when the first tear downs came about 20, 25 years ago. And I think the basic fundamental bargain the city made with the homeowners was, somebody may turn down a house next to you, but it's not going to negatively impact you. Okay. And, and that was the bargain that was struck. And here you have a homeowner that's house wasn't flooding before, but because of construction on a house next door, now their house is flooding. Now they had a problem. The city had to come in and fix it. And, and there's an encumbrance being placed in their property. And that, may be recovered later on i get it it's not a fee that has to be charged now but just in the big picture if i'm living there and that's the bargain i agreed to 25 years ago i just i think it's a really bad look for the city to then turn around and do this so i'm i'm going to be voting voting no but no disrespect to the petitioner or city staff i think your you know your points on the merits are very reasonable thank you mayor

So I guess I've got a little concern about the way this is put together at this point. Number one, the interest rate that is assigned to it, 2% or whatever it is per year for the extent of the deal, but how this would be potentially recorded on the affected party's properties. Are you referring to this as, is this like a lien or is this a... memorandum of conditional recapture, or how is this going to look on a title search for these properties? And I'll refer to...

I'm happy to answer. If I may, too, just kind of back up, just shed a little bit more color. Andy gave a great response. But just with respect to the property, so 623 Willow is three lots south of Hillside on the west side of Willow Road. If you look at this stormwater utility atlas, we have what is shown as the storm sewer in this area as this red dashed line. So the storm sewer stops in this location. So to Andy's point, that's where the city's gap sewer program kind of comes into play. So under city's code, the city engineer can direct that storm sewer be designed and constructed based upon the need to fill system gaps. when m house was hired to do the construction of the home at 623 willow road they it's identified here by the star they installed the storm sewer along the frontage of 7 or 623 willow it's identified there by that red arrow to the north you can see there that's in line with the city's gap sewer program but it's not really fulfilling the goals and obligation of the gap sewer program because ultimately when stormwater was coming through, it had nowhere to discharge. It had nowhere to go because we were not connected to the public storm sewer. So ultimately, in talking with city staff and trying to find some thoughtful solutions, like Andy said, we went through this for about six months trying to find solutions. The best option was the extension of the storm sewer from our property, our storm sewer that we constructed, to the south connection point, which extends past those two properties. Illinois law provides the mechanism for recouping costs associated with a public infrastructure improvement. And that's exactly what this is. So while this might be specific to storm sewer, this is a public infrastructure improvement. When something like this is extended and somebody else can benefit from that improvement, we have the rights to try to recoup those costs in the future if those property owners are seeking to benefit from the improvement. So just in that case, these are the approved engineering plans. We wanted to see that the work could be done while the road was torn up because the sanitary sewer was being replaced, wanted to be cognizant of the neighbors. The storm sewer ended up going in from 623 Willow extending south across 633 and then 639 Willow to that connection point that exists. Ultimately, This fulfills the obligation of the gap sewer system. This helps provide continuous storm sewer along Willow. It provides a benefit to property owners to the north because now they have the opportunity to connect to the storm sewer and we're fulfilling the gaps in the system. That being said, as Andy noted, the installation of the storm sewer would be a condition to any redevelopment of these properties now or in the future. We are not seeking any payment from the property owners today. If the residents wanted to seek to connect to this improvement today, we would ask that they pay their fair share to utilize the improvement. So long as they don't connect, we don't collect. Same goes for if they were to redevelop the properties in the future. Again, they would have had to install the storm sewer. In this instance, it's already put into place. So just that's my overview of this whole situation. It is a standard recapture covered under Illinois law. That all being said, on a title search, this would just come up as a recapture agreement. It would be an exception to title. Anybody who was buying the property would be aware of it and if they were buying the property for a tear down, they would work with the city to pay those costs because again, they would have to install the storm sewer anyway if they're going to tear down and redevelop.

So the answer to the question is it's not a lien, it's a memorandum of conditional recapture.

Recapture on the title commitment, yes.

And it would not prevent refi, HELOCs?

No.

Anything? Okay. Is there a reason, and I'll direct this to our legal staff, is there a reason that we can't tie this to what I believe the spirit of what we're trying to do here is? And that would be if homeowners ever choose to sell their home and the buyer of that home someday decides to tear the house down and build something different, why couldn't we tie this to the demolition permit and the building permit and make it very clear that there's no dollars that are being sought from the current owners based upon the current use, or if they sell the homes in their current condition to somebody who wants to maintain those homes for the next hundred years, that they too will not have to be responsible for any sort of recapture fee unless some of those big changes happen.

And that's exactly how the agreement is structured right now.

I think it goes beyond that, though, with the interest in, I don't think it's specific to the teardown. I think it talks about additions and other things on the current house. So, Mr. DeSanto?

Mayor, I believe the agreement does try and tie the obligation for any future development of the benefited properties to the same standards at which they would be responsible for the sewer gap program currently. The language in Section 4 says that when a benefited property makes use of or benefits from the stormwater sewer improvements and as determined by the city in the reasonable exercise of its discretion. And that includes the issuance of building permits related to a teardown and redevelopment of a benefited property, issuance of an occupancy permit for the benefited property, and the issuance of a permit to allow a connection of a benefited property to the storm sewer. that's when the recapture would trigger and be responsible. So the existing property owner, future property owners would have no obligation to pay the recapture unless they were benefiting from the storm sewer addition. And then the interest is a cap. I would note that it's tied to an index, and it's capped at 2.25%. So if the interest for any given year were less than that, they would get the lesser amount. And if it were more than that, it would be capped at 2.25% for the first 20 years.

Council Member Perot.

I appreciate that. Thank you, Mayor, and your questions there. So can we say that this is not costing the homeowners their money, not through a refi or when they sell? Correct. Unless they hook up to the—

Okay, well, I still, if I'm in the homeowner's shoes, I guess I'm not necessarily comfortable with the language that you just read, Mr. DeSanto. I think, again, to make it very clear, if the house is ever sold and torn down, there's a demolition permit, or if there's a new building permit, that's one that triggers, and charging the 2% interest, I don't necessarily believe is necessary, but... I would like to make a motion with those modifications. Councilman Gibson.

If we are making a motion with modifications, I would be in favor of getting rid of the interest altogether. I see this as, you know, I recognize that the homeowners would not be paying this unless they are using that benefit, which I think is an important distinction here. we need to make this isn't 11,000 that the homeowners need to pay unless they are doing the work that would have needed this anyway. But I'm not sure why it should be accruing interest over the time if this money is going to reimburse the owners of 623.

That was part of the motion.

If we're amending it anyway, I would be in favor of getting rid of the interest.

That was part of my original motion.

That was to get rid of the interest altogether. Okay, great. Thanks.

Is there a second? I made the motion, so I need a second, please.

A second, White.

Mayor, may I try to clarify the motion just for the record as to what I heard? So as I understand it, the motion would be pass the ordinance authorizing the execution of a recapture agreement for the installation of storm sewer improvements as part of the 623 Willow Road offsite storm sewer plans with the limitation that it be limited to situations where the benefited property pulls a demolition permit as well as a building permit which requires the issuance of an occupancy permit and with the elimination of the interest contemplated in the proposed agreement. That sound?

If the benefit of property is also connected to the improvement as well.

Yes, and are benefited by the improvement and connected.

That would be accurate.

If you could just so move that.

Yep, so move.

And the second concurs?

Second, White.

Thank you.

And just a point of order to clarify. Mr. DeSanto, there is absolutely no lien. This is just recorded as a memo on title search.

That's right. The agreement will be recorded against the benefited properties.

And there will be no effects on the current owners for the time that they have until such time as they sell the house and somebody chooses to tear it down?

Mayor, that's a pretty broad statement. I think the owners would like to say that it's contemplative that if this shows up on a title search that it may be valued in the assessment of the home or that a A FUTURE PURCHASER COULD ASSESS THAT AS TO THE VALUE OF THE HOME. IT'S DIFFICULT TO SAY. BUT THERE'S NO RECOVERY OR RECAPTURE OF THE MONIES OWED UNLESS THE QUALIFYING CONDITIONS ARE TAKING PLACE. COUNCILMAN ALZER?

YEAH, THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WAS JUST GOING TO DOUBTILL ON MR. DESANTO'S POINT. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS IS YOU APPLY FOR A REFINANCING OR HEATLOCK, title search is wrong it's up to the lender what they're willing to accept so this is an encumbrance this will make it harder to get a refire alone potentially or cause a higher rate you have to pay or whatever so i'm not comfortable putting that potential encumbrance on on the homeowners thank you mayor thank you so we have a motion in a second roll call jane no mcbroom no syed

No.

White?

No.

Wilson?

No.

Worley?

Yes.

Gibson? No. Holzhauer? No.

Motion fails, 1-7. Or I'm sorry, yeah, 1-7. Aye, 11.

Item I-11 is a recommendation to pass the ordinance amending sections 3-3 and 3-6 of the Naperville Municipal Code to prohibit the retail sale of Kratom. There are 17 written comments that have been posted to the website, and there are seven speakers. The first three speakers are John Doyle, Brittany Sefton, and Dr. Heidi Sikora.

And if you heard your name called, please move to the front row. We do have several speakers on this topic. Thank you.

John Doyle, Neverville resident. Thank you again. I have never personally consumed Kratom, nor has anybody I know shared with me that they have as well, so I don't have any personal skin in this. I also have no problem admitting that I am in no way qualified to say if retail Kratom sales should be banned or not, and I wish the city would feel comfortable saying the same thing. This is a public health issue, just like our police chief said last session, and we do not have a Department of Public Health. As amazing as our staff is, this is simply out of their wheelhouse. So I'm asking for a motion to table this tonight until you're prepared to bring in domain experts who can properly advise a council on action to take. In the meantime, the DEA has instituted temporary rules and Springfield has multiple bills in play. I don't understand why that can't be enough. If you are going to insist on restricting our personal and economic freedoms beyond what the federal and state governments are already doing, I think you owe us a better justification than what you have provided so far.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Brittany Sefton.

Next speaker.

The next speakers are Dr. Heidi Sikora, Michael Fasano, and Allison Smith.

Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Dr. Heidi Sikora. I'm a doctor of nursing practice, retired nurse practitioner, and tonight I am speaking in my personal capacity. First of all, I want to thank council members Gibson, Jane, and McBroom for taking the time to listen to all sides of this issue. Natural Kratom is the only thing that has restored my functional ability. After a lifetime of painful congenital neurological conditions, pharmaceuticals caused life-threatening side effects. Natural Kratom does not intoxicate me or impair me. It simply reduces my pain enough that I can exercise and stretch. For people with chronic pain and disabilities, that's the difference between maintaining years of life or losing them. This is why the mayor's Facebook video calling Kratom gas station heroin is so hurtful. What I take is nothing like heroin. The mayor is describing synthetic laboratory-made products, not natural kratom leaf. On that point, we agree those synthetic products are dangerous. The DEA agrees and is placing them on Schedule 1. The DEA memo is clear. The scheduling action targets manufactured synthetic compounds, not traditional botanical kratom. but the video branded people like me who rely on natural creative function as heroin users. That is not just inaccurate, it's deeply stigmatizing. The Alcohol Commission used the 360 report that says 1.2% of teenagers have tried Kratom and argues that that warrants a ban. The same report shows 40% of teenagers have tried alcohol. Alcohol causes approximately 170,000 deaths every year in the United States. Serious harms from Kratom are rare. Naperville saw an 11% increase in alcohol-related DUIs last year, each one putting innocent lives at risk. I put no one at risk for taking natural kratom. I fully support banning the synthetic products that are truly gas station heroin, but natural kratom leaf is not that. I urge you to regulate kratom responsibly so adults who benefit from it, including people like me, are not harmed by misinformation or denied access to the only safe option that improves our lives. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Michael Fasano, followed by Allison Smith, Marilyn Schweitzer, and Jim Zurich.

Hello, my name is Michael Fasano. I'm a Kratom tea leaf consumer, mostly for insomnia. I spoke here last time, but I think I want to come here to discuss what it seems like the issue is, is the regulatory approach. Now, I'm not a regulator, but I was trying to look into digging in what other towns have done. And I've noticed that there are plenty of towns that have done a route of regulation where they don't sell it at gas stations, that they require a licensing permit. Some of the examples I believe I read was Aurora, Downers Grove, what else was there? Bolingbrook, I believe. And I'm thinking maybe we've come to a compromise where we go a route of regulation where there's a licensing fee and a licensing permit for 21 and older specialty shops to be behind the counter, to run, you know, to do random compliance checks and, you know, set those guardrails in place as opposed to just all out banning it. And, too, I want to echo the days of the burdening of having to differentiate. We don't know how to differentiate between the natural and the synthetic is coming to an end. Just recently, last week of August, the DEA put in effect the ban, the Schedule I ban on synthetics, which is Schedule I now. So I can guarantee you that no distributor or no company retailer is going to take the risk of selling a Schedule I substance. This is no longer a civil fine. This is an arrest. This is jail. This is prison. So let's just get back to natural lethal. the whole brown tea creative. I mean, even if it's proposing the idea that the only type that is sold is just the powder leaf, the leaf that the people in Southeast Asia have consumed for energy and for pain relief for thousands of years and never had a problem until we came here and people had to make strong semi-synthetics and ruin it for everyone. Let the DEA do their job. Let's hopefully come to a sensible approach where we do the regulation. Don't have it sold in gas stations. Put it in a 21 and older shop. And let's come to a compromise. And let's just say that doesn't even work or there's too many violations. We can always come back and reevaluate the situation. So I also want to say the state of Illinois has the Creative Consumer Protection Act. And you know how bills move in Illinois. So Illinois, if you're hearing me, let's work together. Let's get the Creative Consumer Protection Act passed in this state. Let's not do prohibition because that only leads to criminalizations that puts me that punishes me, that punishes people like Heidi, that don't have benefit for their chronic pain. Regulation, not prohibition. Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Alison Smith, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening. My name is Allison Smith, and I serve as the Director of Government Affairs for the Global Kratom Coalition. We are a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to advancing responsible science-based public policy on Kratom while working to eliminate dangerous high-potency synthetic products. I've sent you all emails. I had the opportunity to meet with a couple of the council members, so thank you for taking the time. But you have emails from me as well in your inbox if you would like to review this information. Traditional kratom is the leaf, is from the leaf of Mitragyna speciosa tree, which has been used for centuries in Southeast Asia. As these leaves oxidize, a small portion of mitragynine, which is the primary alkaloid in kratom, will break down into 7-hydroxymitragynine, which is also known as 7-OH. It is only in trace amounts and is not to the level that would cause opioid-like effects that concentrated products cause. The industry standard for differentiation is 2%. Anything with less than 2% 7-OH is considered natural or botanical kratom. anything higher than 2% is considered synthetic or adulterated. And the reason why is because in nature, if you go and find a kratom tree, big, giant, massive tree, pluck the leaf and let it dry and test it, you will never find a leaf that has a 7OH concentration of greater than 2%. These concentrated 7OH products are considered adulterated and violate federal law as set forth by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, otherwise known as DSHEA. In recent years, manufacturers have begun producing these highly addictive substances for financial gain, and it is in the interest of these drug manufacturers to confuse and conflate both regulators and consumers. Despite these products bearing little resemblance to traditional Kratom in all aspects, marketing, packaging, pharmacological makeup, Manufacturers market these products as quote-unquote kratom. Please make no mistake, concentrated 70H products, which are driving the public safety concerns that local governments are now confronting, is not the same as natural kratom. Recognizing this distinction, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration issued a notice of intent to temporarily place concentrated 7OH along with several other synthetic compounds into Schedule 1. Importantly, the DEA's action does not apply to traditional botanical Kratom products. The NOI explicitly states that the scheduling is above a specific threshold. This move is made to target synthesized and highly concentrated products. And as of last week, I believe August 26, three of those derivatives were scheduled and are now a Schedule I substance for sale, distribution, and possession. Natural kratom has been consumed for centuries in Southeast Asia, as I said earlier. The leaf did not suddenly change in 2026. What changed was the market. So my request, and I'm trying to wrap this up, is simple. Regulate. Amend the existing ordinance to distinguish between traditional and synthetic products. Implement age gates, packaging requirements. I'm almost done. And then finally, in addition, I have to just write a resolution urging the state to act. Thank you.

Next speaker.

The final two speakers are Marilyn Schweitzer, followed by Jim Surick.

Good evening. So no plant that has been used for centuries as a natural remedy should be turned into a form that creates a public health threat. However, the argument that its benefits as a natural remedy are unproven or that alternatives exist and therefore should be prohibited fails when we consider that we do not prohibit the sale of tobacco in all forms. Instead, we regulate it. Ohio appears to have successfully legislated prohibitions on synthetic mitoglycine-related compounds and concentrated derivatives, such as 7-OH, without prohibiting natural kratom leaf or ground natural kratom leaf. I previously sent you information about Ohio's regulations and guidelines. A retail ban may provide a sense of having taken decisive action, but if people suffer withdrawal because of this lack of access or simply obtain these products elsewhere, little has been accomplished. The underlying problem is more complex than what is available in local retail shelves. A ban may also make it more difficult for people already using such products to reduce their use gradually and in a controlled manner. For those who are able to safely reduce or taper off of their use on their own, that effort should be encouraged and supported rather than automatically treating them as addicts and directing them into traditional addiction treatment. At the same time, people who need medical or substance use treatment should have access to appropriate non-judgmental care. So please support an ordinance that prohibits the sale of synthetic myelogycine-related compounds and concentrated derivatives such as 7-OH, but does not prohibit the sale of natural kratom leaf or ground natural kratom leaf. Please also prohibit all advertising of kratom products. Finally, recommend that staff work with appropriate health, public safety, and medical professionals to develop and broadly distribute better local education about the risks of creative products, including 708, and in cases where needed, safer ways to reduce or discontinue their use. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Jim Surick.

Okay. Council, there is another speaker who arrived at 6.20 and apparently drove a couple hours to testify here tonight and was not aware of our sign-up rules. I would need a council action by a voice vote to determine whether or not we want to allow him to speak. All those in favor?

Mayor, I have a question, if that's all right. Go ahead. Boy, I hate to be the jerk in this situation, but I do have to ask, has it happened in the past that people have not known about our electronic sign-up policy and then not been allowed to speak? I don't know the answer to that. Would perhaps Ms. Kortner know the answer to that? Do you know? if we've had people that have not signed up electronically wanted to speak at the meeting and then basically they haven't been allowed to speak?

Not that I know of, at least in the past three years.

Okay, then I'm comfortable. Thank you, Mayor. Okay.

So is there a motion to allow the speaker who didn't sign up prior to 6.30 to speak? Seeing none. Councilman White, you want to make the motion?

Yeah, I'll make the motion to allow the speaker to address the council.

Is there a second? Councilman Holzer? Second, Holzer. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, sign aye. Not very loud. So let's do a division here. Let's do a roll call vote.

Is there a moment for comment? Go ahead. Thank you. In the past, I've advocated for no 630 sign up. So this feels like a good opportunity to throw that out there again. I think we should be able to sign up up until seven o'clock when the meeting starts.

Okay. Let's do a quick roll call vote just to make sure we got it right.

McBroom.

Aye.

Sayed? Aye. White?

Aye.

Wilson?

Aye.

Worley?

Yes.

Gibson? Aye. Bolshower? Aye. Jane? Aye.

OK. Call the speaker.

Craig Katz.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and members of the council. I appreciate the fact that you're giving me the opportunity to speak. I am the government relations and compliance manager for a company called MNG Brands. We operate as a distributor, a manufacturer, and we have 55 retail stores in five states operating under the name CBD Kratom. We are the largest distributor of natural leaf kratom in the United States. That gives me a really good viewpoint as to what goes on in terms of regulation and not regulation because I testify all across the country. I'd like to point out a couple of things. First of all, as a company, We have self-regulated since 2014 when we opened up as our first store in Chicago, and now we've grown to 55 stores. We age-gate at the door. We test independent third party testing, generally speaking DEA certified or ISO certified labs. Every item that we sell has a QR code on it that leads to a certificate of analysis so that everybody can see exactly what's in our products. We are not an outlier in the industry. We are the standard of the industry. Generally speaking, the people who are selling natural leaf products do exactly what we do. To call the products that we sell gas station heroin is frankly insulting to everybody in the industry because that's just not what it is. I'd like to point out that, as other people have pointed out, that the DEA has taken a very firm stand on this. They have gone after 7-OH and other synthetic products. Commissioner Macri last year in July of 25 came out with a public statement that said that they were not going to attack natural leaf products because they did not think that it was a problem. Acting Commissioner Diamantis, who has taken over for Commissioner Macri, has reiterated that position. The FDA and the DEA are in lockstep on this issue that natural leaf kratom is not considered to be a danger to human beings. There has been a movement to start a trial on testing natural leaf kratom effect on human beings. There would not be a trial that was proposed by the government on live human beings if they thought that there was going to be an adverse or dangerous effect on those people. This does not make sense. So I'm asking you to regulate. Do not ban natural leaf kratom products. We do not like the synthetic products, and we need them off the shelves and out of the marketplace. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more speakers? Seeing none, council discussion. Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor. So as of like a month ago, I didn't know much about Kratom. So I seem to have learned a lot about it over the past month, had some wonderful discussions with some of the speakers today. And like all issues have come to the conclusion that this issue too is not either black or white or clear cut, that it's far more nuanced. Generally, principally speaking, I'm always hesitant to issue any kind of a ban, especially when we have individuals who seem to have benefited from some form of it. However, there's a couple of things that give me pause. One was the testimony of Ms. Ashley Ware, who spoke last time, who talked about the negative impact of the substance in its natural form. And second was a testimony from Chief Aries who spoke of how cumbersome and sounded like almost very difficult to enforce and regulate based on a distinction of synthetic versus natural. So for those two reasons, I will be supporting the ban because it is limited to the retail sale of it, not the consumption. I want to state that I empathize with the members who spoke about the benefits of it, but we as council, I see one of my primary duties as protecting our most vulnerable population, which are our students. who are not able to distinguish between what is harmful because the federal regulations haven't got up to speed. It's not to say what our last speaker said, that there are tests coming. So once those tests are done and we have more information, perhaps we could revisit the ban. But until then, we have a duty to our most vulnerable population right now. when I weigh the costs and benefits in this particular matter, the costs just outweigh some of the benefits for the retail sale of this product. So that's why I will be supporting the ban. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Mayor. I was hoping either Chief Aries or the City Attorney could talk to the impact of the DEA making this as synthetic as Schedule 1. I mean, does that effectively mean what, as of now, anybody selling synthetic 7-OH is selling an illegal drug?

Mr. DeSanto?

I'd have to look into that. I'm not fully aware of the ramifications of that scheduling or when it becomes effective, the details around that.

Can we ask, I guess, just generally, and maybe this is a question for the chief then, if somebody in Naperville, a retailer in Naperville, was selling a Schedule I substance, how would we handle that?

Chief Aries?

I'll do my best with that, with the hypothetical. I think I'd rather point to what we've learned and was in the memo. It's the testing of the substance. So if council says just ban 7-0-H, the labs are not going to test something that is an ordinance ban. So it would be difficult. And we heard some of the testimony the last time from some of the folks in the crowd that said they were upset with the packaging because it really doesn't distinguish that this is a 7-0-H product. So if we did a partial ban, the lab wouldn't even test that for us to do that at this point. I think the key would be to go back to them, as our city attorney said, when it is a Schedule I, because other Schedule I substances are tested by the lab. But when we called, because the police department said, assisted our our detective that works with the mayor on the liquor commission made some phone calls and the lab told us right now they will not test something as part of a city ordinance investigation which you would need to prove or disprove what is in that substance for us to criminally charge sure does that help absolutely so i think to me that's a key distinction because if it is a dea identified schedule one drug presumably the lab would test it presumably the

RAMIFICATIONS OF A RETAILER SELLING THIS IN OUR COMMUNITY WOULD BE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN VIOLATING AN ORDINANCE. AND IF IT IS A SCHEDULED DEA SCHEDULED ONE DRUG, OUR BAN, A WHOLE BAN OF CRATUM WOULD EFFECTIVELY JUST BE BANNING THE NATURAL LEAF BECAUSE AT A FEDERAL LEVEL SYNTHETICS ARE ALREADY BANNED. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW MORE IF Synthetic is a illegal drug now. Because if it is, I think that changes the testing and our ability to enforce it. One of the reasons I was hoping we could get synthetic and natural leaf separated following the first reading.

Councilwoman Jane, second round.

yeah i my understanding and and maybe this is something that we can seek more clarification on is that only three synthetic forms have been identified and that there are could be other synthetic forms or the 7oh concentration in itself has not been identified as schedule schedule one and then again Anyway, so that's my understanding, and we could see clarification on that, but I think there are still gaps.

Councilman Alzar. Thank you, Mayor. To Chief's point, I mean, so like I have the experience of having prosecuted cases like this before, right? And synthetic cannabinoids were like a big thing 15, 20 years ago. And it started out with there were three or four or five of them. I think it was a chemistry professor at Clemson who got fired and started making these just as a hobby um but just looking at chat gpt right now there's over 500 strains that are out there right now and it's not like you can test unless it's a known like this chemical compound we're going to test for it, it's going to come back as a negative on a test. So the vast majority of even these compounds, which have been known about since 2010, they can't catch on a drug test. And the people who make these know you can lace what seems to be a good product with something that's not. I will say, in the time since the last meeting, I've I've spoken with mental health professionals who do referrals. Their message has been very, very clear to me on this. I've spoken with people who have abused drugs, who know people that abuse drugs, on the level of mushrooms, cocaine. you know, other serious hard drugs. And I know people in that community that say that they are afraid of kratom. Like that is how seriously they take this. I hear Mr. Doyle's point about there are higher authorities out there than the Naperville City Council when it comes to public safety. However, you know, we were not, we've not been afraid in the past to step in when it's public safety that's at issue. And so I'm going to be supporting the ordinance. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. I want to thank, I'm sorry, Councilman White.

Thank you. As I stated before, you know, our top priority as far as I'm concerned as a council, councilman here is public safety, public health of our community. So that's always where I kind of lean, go back to. And I, first of all, appreciate all the, everyone who came up here to speak. And I feel for you for a lot of the conditions that you're having to deal with. But right now, at least in the city of Naperville, we can't really distinguish between the two. And there's a process in place that would allow us to do that. I've got to lean on the side of public safety until we can figure out the difference between Naperville the cell of synthetic and the natural leaf so that the public is very well aware of it. I was even sitting here thinking maybe a moratorium on this and then we come back and revisit it. I don't know if we need to do that or we just come back and bring it. It can come back to the table and we can revisit it a year from now. I don't know. And again, as it's been stated up here, People who are taking the natural leave can continue to do that. We're not saying you can't have it. But until we can distinguish between the two, I just can't approve it at this point, just for those reasons. I would have liked to have... heard from some folks that actually that live here in this community that are that are taking uh kratom and they can experience and give us that last time we came up here i didn't have one speaker from naperville get up here and speak about it i wanted to know what it's like buying it here as an example uh not necessarily taking it so if you like kratom you want to continue to take it you can you can do that but as far as buying it here in naperville we need to WE NEED TO GET A HANDLE ON THAT BEFORE WE CAN GO FORWARD AND IF WE WANT TO REVISIT IT, I'M ABSOLUTELY, I'M FINE WITH THAT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN MCBROOM.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M CURIOUS. I THOUGHT COUNCILWOMAN GIBSON'S MOTION WAS TO BRING BACK THE TWO OPTIONS. WASN'T THAT? IS THERE A REASON WHY WE DIDN'T GET THOSE OPTIONS?

the regulated option? There was a discussion about having alternate options, but the actual motion was just to bring back this after we'll do the first reading.

Okay, just want to clear that up. So, you know, like my colleagues, Like Councilwoman Jane said, I didn't know what Creighton was. I've spoken to more people about it and learned more about this topic than I'll ever need to know. And I still don't know, right? And I think Mr. Doyle's right. Like, none of us are scientists up here. You know, I think it's beyond our purview. And, you know, so if I have to vote on a ban or not, I don't have another option here. I can talk myself into the ban. I'm hearing from our chief. I'm hearing from some of the things that Councilman White said. Apparently, we can't tell the difference. I have to believe that. Part of this seems a little symbolic. I don't like to support things that don't actually do something. And I fear that you can set a precedent by doing that. You know, the only thing that I think we all agree on and there's no discussion on is the synthetic form. But I'm being told that we can't tell the difference in the store. So, you know, and I, along with Councilman White, if I had some business owners in Naperville that sold it and came in here, I haven't had that. You know, for the most part, it's been Naperville individuals that have, but I have talked to some people. I've talked to a lot of people. I tend to believe that this powder form that people put in the tea is harmless. But again, I'm not a scientist. It's a difficult thing. So, you know, I would have preferred to regulate it than do an all-out ban. But, you know, if this is the vote tonight, ban or not, I mean, I'm not sort of going to die on either. It doesn't sound like there's a huge amount of, you know, local business advocates that are telling us that we serve customers here and we need to be able to serve our customers and help people. So it's a tough one, but I think I'll be supporting the ordinance tonight. I do think that whoever suggested, you know, sending a letter, an ordinance to the state of Illinois to, you know, step in would be nice.

Councilman Wilson. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I had similar comments as far as receiving two options here, but fortunately we didn't really get that. But I guess for similar reasons as others have said, it's hard to make a distinction, I suppose. I guess Councilman Whitehead brought up perhaps doing a moratorium or a pause on this for a year or something until it comes back. But I suspect that others might not have a desire for that. So I don't know. I struggled with this. I also see other things that are harmful to individuals in the community, which we're not banning as well, that are completely legal right now. So I have a lot of struggle with supporting those as it's written right now and without looking into further options that we could possibly do. Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson, second round.

Thank you. I will echo what my colleague said. Thank you to everybody who came out today. The consistent thread I've heard is that there is a difference between synthetic and natural. And I agree, we have what sounds like a very dangerous product in these synthetics that is widely available in our community. And I think while I would love to wait and see how the DEA and the state regulate, I do recognize that we need to get these dangerous products out of our stores. a more timely fashion as it seems as the trajectory the dea starts to address the difference and hopefully there are ways to test it and maybe the state of illinois put some guard rails on there i would absolutely be open to bringing this back to because at that point if there are guard rails against synthetic at the dea and state level our band would effectively just be addressing natural leaf kratom and in that case i would be open to readdressing this. But at this time, for the more immediate public safety aspect of synthetic kratom, I'll be supporting this.

Councilman Syatt.

Thank you, Mayor. So as an elected official, as a council member, as a community, it is our responsibility that public safety is the top priority. We all have been talking about this. But practically, we have to It should not be a lip service, but practically we have to implement. And I've been seeing some figures from poison control centers in the United States receive more than 3,400 reports about use of kratom from 2014 to 2019. And this includes death. This includes weight loss. This includes liver damage. There have been many, many high blood pressure, So this is scary, you know, when you read, when you talk to people and listen about these scary things, you don't want to, you know, get into that trap. So I will definitely support this banning of this thing based on all these issues and critical things which we can have an impact on us, our next generation. Thank you.

I want to thank everyone who was engaged on this. You've been heard and you are all part of the public record. The mayor's office and the city council has received impassioned communications on both sides of this issue. And I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone who's testified at the liquor commission or before this council, or even back before the city council in 2019. But our charge here is the health, the safety and the welfare of this community, our families and our young people. And we've heard from neighbors who bravely shared what happened to them, A product marketed as natural and harmless did terrible things to their lives. Local nonprofits and health experts testify to the harm these unregulated products are causing. And our own police chief and the DuPage County Coroner's Office have informed us of fatal overdoses in our community associated with kratom. Mitragynine is the main psychoactive agent in natural kratom plant. In Naperville alone, we are aware of one mitragynine death and four overdoses in this year. And folks, one mitragynine death in our city is too many. These are facts and they come from our own community. I've also heard the argument tonight and last time that natural leaf and concentrated synthetic products are different and that we should treat them differently. But here's the difficulty. Telling them apart requires somebody with the authority to check. It requires testing. It requires labeling and potency limits. It requires compliance for the businesses selling it. And it requires regulation. And in Illinois today, none of that exists. There's no license to make, package, distribute, or sell kratom. There's no standard for what goes in the container. There's no one confirming that what's on the package is what's actually in the product you take home. and Naperville can't build a laboratory to verify the purity of what's sold here. And even if we could, the overdose risk would still be there. What this council can decide is what gets sold in our city, and to me it's simple. We do not need a product that has nicknames like gas station heroin on our shelves. And to the industry advocates and Kratom users who have written and testified, I want to be clear that this is not new. Back in 2019, this council long before me, gave the Kratom industry room to operate and time to develop its own standards and consumer protections. Seven years later, it is worse, not better, and we have tragic local record of addiction, overdoses, and now death to show for it. The products reaching consumers are still unlicensed, untested, and unregulated, and they are reaching young people who should not have access to them. And that's what brought families forward alongside our addiction treatment professionals and our nonprofits. Their clarity and their courage are why we scheduled the hearing before the Tobacco and Liquor Commission in July, where the commission voted unanimously to recommend that we act. Now, this is a chance for Naperville to use its voice to build a safer Illinois. Local government has to step up and push the state to do its part like we have done before. And I'm not going to ask our families to wait it out again. I hope my colleagues will support this ban tonight and stand on the side of safety in our city. Councilman White may have a motion.

Mayor, I move to pass the ordinance amending sections 3-3 and 3-6 of the Naperville Municipal Code to prohibit the retail sale of Creighton. Councilman Holtzauer.

Second, Holtzauer.

We have a motion and a second on I-11. We'll call.

McBroom?

Aye.

Syed? Aye. White? Aye. Wilson? Aye. Worley? Yes. Gibson? Aye. Bolshower? Aye. Jane? Aye.

Motion passes 8-0. Item I-12.

Item I-12 is a recommendation to waive the first reading and pass an ordinance amending sections 3-3-3 and 3-3-12 of the Naperville Municipal Code to allow happy hour specials consistent with state law while adding a local restriction to prohibit such specials after 7 p.m. There are four written comments and three positions of support posted to the website, and there are five speakers signed up on this item. The first speaker is John Doyle, followed by Neil Malone and Marilyn Schweitzer.

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

John Doyle, Naperville resident. Thank you. You know, I always thought it was oddly puritanical for Naperville to have a ban on happy hour, so I was glad to see it being lifted. But then I noticed we're still pushing for a seemingly arbitrary cutoff time of 7 p.m. So I'm again asking for a motion to amend to remove the 7 p.m. restriction and allow state defaults. The agenda item presented provides justification for lifting the ban, but does not provide any justification for recommending the 7 p.m. cutoff. And the justifications for lifting the ban, such as digital ID scanners and rideshare apps, well, they don't stop existing at 7 p.m., so I'm not understanding your logic train here. You know, at the end of the day, just like with Kratom, I'm going to say, if you're going to insist on restricting our personal and economic freedoms beyond what the federal and state governments are already doing, I think you owe us a little bit better explanation than, because it feels right, and that's basically what this agenda item says about that 7 p.m. cutoff. So no issues with removing the ban, but don't make it arbitrary. Make it purposeful. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Neil Malone, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

We need the microphone on, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. My name is Neil Malone, and for the record, I represent the Naperville Area Chamber of Commerce, where I serve as Director of Governmental Affairs. And on behalf of our organization and the businesses we represent, we would respectfully ask that you do lift the ban and allow for happy hours to occur within this limited framework that you're discussing and give our businesses an opportunity to host these events. Basically, we have five points. One, it offers our business owners some flexibility. It allows them to bring in new customers, specifically during non-peak times, and be able to introduce their restaurants or bars to these new customers in a more cost-effective sort of way. It also provides for consistency. In many cases, our businesses are located in close proximity to areas in which happy hour is allowed, and so they're literally competing with business across the street that is allowed to offer these low-cost options when they're not able to. Obviously, there's economic impact, not just for the restaurants or bars, but a lot of cases, You'll get a situation where you may come down for happy hour, have an hors d'oeuvre and a drink, and maybe mill around some of the shops surrounding the restaurants or establishments. And so that will also create additional economic impact. It also provides for additional employment for, by having more peak hours in which restaurants are busy, it allows the staff to also benefit from additional hours that they're able to work and earn money. And then finally, just the modernization aspect of this. The existing state law has been in place now for over 10 years. They've not seen an uptick in any negative consequences of being able to have happy hours return. I think there's been a number of lifestyle changes and transportation options and strengthening of things like DUI laws that kind of would mitigate any negative consequences of this decision. And so I will be here and available for questions, but I will return the rest of your time to you and just ask that you, respectfully ask that you support the lifting of the ban. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speakers are Marilyn Schweitzer, followed by Monica Connors and Christina Caton-Kitchell.

Good evening. I agree that the ordinance should be amended to be more consistent with state law. However, I do not agree that the only differences should be 7 p.m. cutoff for drink specials. There are two existing prohibitions that I believe should be retained. First, section 3.2.2.1 prohibits serving two or more drinks of alcoholic liquor at one time to one person for consumption, except for the sale or delivery of wine by bottle or carafe. Second, section 3.2.2.3 prohibiting selling, offering to sell, or serving any drink of alcoholic liquor to any person at a price reduced by more than 50% of the scheduled price. I believe the heart of the problem with the current ordinance is that all-day discounts on alcoholic beverages are allowed, but hourly discounts are not. For example, Rosebud currently offers 50% off of select wines all day on Tuesdays. Meanwhile, Fat Rosie's cannot offer a 50% off margaritas between 3 and 6 p.m., as it does at other locations. The staff's notes to the Commission meeting did not recommend deleting the restrictions I mentioned, and the draft ordinance provided to the Commission retained them. The public did not specifically request their removal, and the Commission did not discuss them. I believe staff struck these provisions from the ordinance presented to City Council tonight simply because the focus at the Liquor Commission meeting was on the 7 p.m. limit and its consistency with state law. Requiring an establishment to serve one drink at a time to a patron is a minimal burden on the business while promoting responsible service. Allowing a discount up to 50% still permits a substantial happy hour discount. In conclusion, I recommend that the proposed changes to the ordinance be adopted with the exception of sections 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.3 be retained. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Monica Connors, followed by Christina Caton-Kitchell.

Good evening, Mayor and members of City Council. Monica Connors with the Naperville Development Partnership. On behalf of Doug Gerald, our chairman of the board who couldn't be here tonight, I'd like to reiterate a few points that were included in our letter of support. The Naperville Development Partnership has three areas of emphasis, economic development, tourism, and restaurant marketing. Ordinance 26-10-12 would allow for happy hour in Naperville, which would have a positive impact on many of our 400 restaurants who support the employment of over 8,000 people in the accommodation and food industry. We respectfully request that the ordinance be passed. Dine Naperville, an established brand of NDP, promotes the restaurant industry in the city. We frequently hear from business owners and operators that not having happy hour is detrimental to their competitiveness, detrimental to their bottom line, and also has a negative impact on their employees. The city stands to gain additional revenue in the form of sales tax, alcohol tax, and food and beverage tax during the hours of happy hour, which are typically the slowest hours of the day. Businesses will gain incremental revenue during these slower times, and employees of these establishments will gain additional income in their pockets, as new incremental sales will be generated from the hours of 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. for a total of 15 hours a week, which follows state law. When new restaurants pursue a location in Naperville and learn that they cannot have a traditional happy hour, it creates challenges from a marketing perspective. Many of our restaurants are part of larger business groups, and they have multiple locations throughout Chicagoland and Illinois. And these businesses must create a Naperville-only menu, modify their websites, and even change advertising that must exclude Naperville from promotions. Most of our major restaurant groups have cited frustration over this because it creates both compliance issues and a potential for loss business. NDP supports a safe happy hour that will allow Naperville restaurants to be more competitive. We understand that ride sharing and carpooling are more established today than when this issue was originally considered many years ago. The 7 p.m. cutoff in part was because for safety reasons. And again, that was unanimously voted by the Liquor Commission. So it's for these reasons that we support the passage of Ordinance 26-10-12. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The final speaker on this item is Christina Caton-Kitchell.

Hi. Christina Kitchell with Caton Commercial Real Estate Group. As many of you know, I do a lot of real estate transactions in downtown Naperville, specifically with restaurants. What I want to speak on going a step further from what Monica covered, is really what the purpose of Happy Hour is in terms to these restaurants. Our real estate here, as you all know, is some of the most expensive real estate outside of Chicago. And in order to make the dollars that they need to make, they have to get butts in the seats Monday through Thursday. There's no problems with the successful restaurants in this town filling Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Thursday nights in the summer. What Happy Hour does is it helps entice and give those incentives to people on fixed incomes, people with multiple kids and younger that want to come out earlier and fill those time slots. We are in a tight competition as our surrounding communities have way lower rental rates. They have a lot of incentives that they're throwing at these businesses. And for us to then not allow for those off-peak hours to bring in additional income to cover that rental is really detrimental to these businesses. So for that reason, I hope you guys do repeal it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more speakers? Okay, Council, with regard to the proposal before us, one of the things that Ms. Schweitzer brought up and I had also noted with our professional staff is there are three sections from the current Liquor Code that I believe were intended to be included, but during the motion at Liquor Commission were likely omitted. accidentally omitted. And those are related to the number of drinks that can be served to a person at one time. And that would be in section 3.2.2.3. I'm sorry, 3.2.2.1, which would require service of two or more drinks of alcoholic, I'm sorry, prohibit the service of two or more drinks of alcoholic liquor at one time to one person for consumption, except selling or delivering wine by the bottle or carafe. So I believe we need to keep that in as well as the 50% discount 3.2.2.3, which is prohibit selling offer to sell any drink or alcoholic liquor to any person at a price reduced by more than 50% of its scheduled price. And then there's one other nuance here. It's 3.2.2. What is it, Mike? One, and that would be to have the liquor license establishment post their prices so we know what a 50% discount looks like. Just a little bit of history regarding Mr. Doyle's comment earlier. Back when the state adopted the happy hour, or changed their stance on happy hour years ago, the liquor commission looked at that, but we were also, dealing with a lot of late night liquor-related violence in downtown specifically. And the Liquor Commission back then voted to keep things as is. Obviously, those things have not continued. The city's made great strides in improvement to guarantee the safety of our patrons in the downtown. And the Liquor Commission felt that a 7 o'clock cut off for happy hour would be appropriate so as to not have people over consuming right before late night hours start. I hope that clarifies anything. And obviously there was never any intent to have people served a bucket of beer by themself or anything else like that. So with that, seeing no other discussion, Councilman White or Councilman Wilson, you have a question?

Just a quick question for either staff or Monica or Christina. anyone really, I guess. But was the intention of business owners, restaurants, to have the wording, if you happen to know, as it's written or what was talked about at the Liquor Commission meeting? I guess more succinctly, are restaurants in support of this as it is, or was this what they desired, or was it something different?

So one of the things that did come up was when it was the discussion of the time, there was only one gentleman that wanted it to go later into the evening, which was interesting. But the majority of the restauranteurs that came up here and spoke really were speaking to kind of what I mentioned earlier, which is this is meant to bring in people during their off hours. Most of them don't even offer this Friday, Saturday, or Sunday because to their point, they don't need to. So why would they discount where they can collect at full price? This is to bring people through the door So most of them said that they were completely fine with the 7 p.m. because there's no way that they would actually probably most likely offer it past 6 p.m. So it's really that two to six, three to seven hours. And it's really more like Monday through Wednesday, Monday through Thursday. It's definitely not a weekend thing. Again, it's to drive more patrons through the door. So everybody outside of one individual that wanted to extend it beyond midnight, everybody else was like, yeah, we... we wouldn't offer it past that time because that's our peak hours and why would we discount our product when we have rising costs across the board thank you councilman white may have a motion yeah mayor i'm going to incorporate what you mentioned and amend the order amend the original

ordinance. So I move to waive the first reading and pass the ordinance amending sections 3-3-3 and 3-3-12 of the Naperville Municipal Code to allow happy hour specials consistent with state law with a local restriction prohibiting such specials after 7 p.m. and retaining sections 3-3-1 or make that 3-3-12 3.2.1 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.3 requiring a posted drink price schedule, prohibiting service of two or more drinks at one time to one person, except wine by the bottle or carafe, and prohibiting a discount greater than 50% of the scheduled price. Councilman Olsauer?

Second, Olsauer. We have a motion and a second on I-12. Roll call.

Syed.

Aye.

White. Aye. Wilson. Aye. Worley. Yes. Gibson. Aye. Holzhauer. Aye. Jane. Aye. McBroom.

Aye. Motion passes 8-0. Okay, we're going to take a seven-minute break. We will be back at 9-11. OK, folks, it's 9-11. I'd like to get everybody back in their seats so we can start. Item J1.

Item J1 is recommendation to receive the staff report and conduct the public hearing to consider an amendment to the annexation agreement for Monarch Landing and related ordinances for the property located at 2255 Monarch Drive. There are two speakers on the item. The first speaker is Vince Rosanova representing the petitioner.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council.

Hold on. We need to open public hearing first. Public hearing for the property located at 2255 Monarch Drive is now open. We will start with the petitioner's presentation. They're allowed 10 minutes. Now, Mr. Rosanova.

Good evening. Good evening, Mayor, City Council. I'm Vince Rosanova with the law firm of Rosanova & Whitaker here tonight on behalf of the petitioner, which is MI Homes of Chicago. Also with me this evening, and certainly available for questions, we have Zach Kennitzer along with our entire design team. By way of background, MI Homes is a very well-respected home builder, been building homes since 1976, and MI is certainly proud to be part of the Naperville community. They have their corporate headquarters in Naperville, in the City Gate Center, just south of Ferry Road, where they employ over 140 people in their Midwest division. They're also very proud to have completed many beautiful subdivisions in Naperville over the last 20 years. Looking at the subject property, you can see it consists of 25 acres, located immediately to the east of Monarch Landing, as well as to the north of Ferry Road. There's certainly a variety of uses in the area. Just to the north is the corporate boundary with Warrenville, where there's single family homes. To the east is the Prairie Point Business Park, which has many businesses, as well as many recreational uses. Pickleball comes to mind. And then to the south, we have everything that CityGate has to offer, award-winning hotel, restaurants, service retail, and most notably, over 2,000 jobs in that Westings Crossings business development. With regard to the history of the site, this site was originally slated for Monarch Landing phase two. Monarch Landing collectively anticipated 1,800 assisted living and independent living units that was ultimately scaled back. Monarch Landing exists on phase one and at all times this property was actually zoned OCI and slated for residential development except for a brief period of time in 2018 when it was presented as a 200,000 square foot hockey arena, 60 foot heights as well as a thousand parking spaces, many of which were on the shared property line with Monarch Landing. Well, I certainly can't speak for Monarch Landing. In my humble opinion, the Northgate community before you this evening is much more compatible with Monarch Landing than the hockey arena. With regard to zoning, property's always been zoned OCI since it was annexed in the 80s, over 40 years ago. Always intended, as I mentioned, for residential purposes. is very important to make that distinction. This is not ORI zoned corridor property. This is OCI zoned residential property. In fact, the OCI zone, the main purpose is to serve as a transition between higher intensity business uses, which is Prairie Point to the east, and lower intensity residential uses, which is Monarch Landing to the west. And OCI also envisions residential as a conditional use. We always look at the guiding documents when designing our site plan. In this case, it's the 2022 comprehensive plan, the 2020 housing needs assessment study, and the NDP's I-88 corridor study. Comprehensive plan designates this as regional center, specifically talks about the need to create a variety of uses to really create a robust environment. Here we have City Gate, we have Monarch Landing, we have the Prairie Point. Then you bring in the town homes, which will really spark additional interest and create that variety that the comprehensive plan speaks of. It's no mystery that we're facing a housing shortage. Naperville is not immune. Our 2020 housing needs assessment indicates that we're about 8,600 homes short as I stand here today. compounding to about 13,000 homes short by 2040. Then lastly, although not a guiding document, something that provides a good reference point, the I-88 corridor study specifically speaks to the need to bring residential and strategic locations along the corridor to provide people working in the corridor with housing, as well as attract employers to the corridor who will then know that their employees will have a place to live. So certainly, in alignment with the guiding documents, which brings me to the site plan. Accordingly, you can see that the community's been designed with 171 town homes, as well as a public park located along the west property line, and something that we're very proud of is the landscape buffering along the perimeter, mature trees, talking about burns, setbacks. In fact, when we focus on the overall quality and site design, We've come in at a density of only about 62% of what's anticipated in the OCI zoning district. Coming in at a lesser density, significantly lesser density than what's permitted allows us to maximize open space. 30% is required. We're at 42%, and that doesn't even factor in the public park. Focusing on open space allows us to create additional distances between us and our neighbors. We're almost 300 feet away to the nearest point of Monarch Landing and almost 200 feet away to the nearest point of the Prairie Park. Additionally, day one, the park site has been a collaborative process, compliments to Monarch Landing, who is going to be contributing 0.65 acres to the public park. MI Homes will dedicate two and a half acres, and then we'll have a nice 3.24 acre public park where Monarch Landing, MI Homes, as well as all members of the community could share that park. Park District is currently programming it. That's not complete yet, but the plans are taking shape very nicely. Certainly a path system, recreational features, exercise stations, which we think will be very popular for Monarch Landing, playground sets, as well as various other different features that will be produced here shortly. So the request from the park actually came from Monarch Landing residents to the park district, and they came to us and said, can we work together on a public park? And they showed us this exhibit, which shows that the nearest park site is a mile and a half away, so certainly very much in need for that recreational opportunity. A lot of time and energy also went into the floor plans and the architecture. three different floor plans ranging from 1,900 to 2,300 square feet for a lot of variety. But most importantly, we added the Taylor floor plan, which focuses on visitability, very important from an ADA perspective, and also a first floor primary, which is very appealing to the active adult. Keeping in conformance with the OCI intent to provide that transition, we provided this perspective showing Monarch Landing towards the top left portion of the screen, and how it transitioned into a very harmonious land use into Prairie Point. So you can see here what it looked like when the trees mature. Here's just an elevation kind of showing the quality and the materials, the interest in the building and the incorporation of the Taylor end unit and how that plays out very nice. Target market, very broad net, very appealing to everybody, in particular active adults, professionals working in the corridor consistent with the I-88 study. and also family members of Monarch residents that want to stay close to mom and dad or grandma and grandpa, first-time homebuyers as well. Compliments to MI, which is always the case on all their projects, great collaboration, inclusive process, work with Monarch Landing, Senior Care Development, attended resident meetings with Monarch Landing, information Q&A, worked with the Park District, worked with the Naperville Development Partnership. School District has no objection, worked with the City of Warrenville, worked with the Prairie Point Corporate Park, worked with DuPage County relative to the existing act of SSA. So across the board, a great job to them on their outreach. We're also very excited about the possibility of naming one of our main streets after a notable new pavilion. We've left a placeholder here. We would be very honored if the council selected Candace Parker Drive. That's totally in your purview. You tell us what to put here and we will put it there when we come back for final plat. And lastly, compliments to staff. Their involvement over the last year has led to a much enhanced site plan and architecture. Throughout the process, they've given us good tips, good recommendations. And in the final staff report, there's five additional recommendations, all of which we're in agreement with. So we also appreciate your time and consideration. We're available for questions.

We do have another speaker after. You want to go ahead and call him? Thank you.

The next speaker is John Doyle.

All right, John Doyle, Neverville resident. Thank you. You know, I really do like a lot of things about this project, especially the density and the visibility features in particular. I can't help but question if this is the right target market we should be going after with this property right now. Active adults are, you know, childless adults, age 55 and up typically, and we're trying to build three and four bedroom units for them. I just don't quite make, I'm not quite sure that makes sense, to be honest. You know, they comment about a population gain of ages 50 and up, and I question if that's because people over the age of 50 are actually moving into Naperville and need these houses, or they're just aging up and not moving out. The fact that our combined enrollment across both our school districts continues to decline year over year tells me it's more likely that people are just aging up. Where are the projects to bring in new families, or are we intentionally working towards a more child-free Naperville? It would be easier to support a project like this if it was part of a larger affordable housing package, like the city worked on for some five years and then largely walked away from after a 5-4 vote. Maybe we need to revisit that in some form. I very much agreed with the mayor about Springfield's Build Act package being a bad fit for Naperville, but at least it was a plan to address affordability. Our current tactics aren't an affordable housing plan, they're an affordable housing wish. Considering housing affordability as our lowest ranked item, in our lowest scoring cluster on the recent community survey. I'm asking you to reject this project and instead refocus efforts on real long-term solutions to bring new families into affordable housing in Naperville. Give us a version of the BUILD Act that works for us so Springfield doesn't feel forced to get one for us. And I know the Planning and Zoning Committee approved this unanimously, but they also approved the data center unanimously, and none of us wanted that either. So maybe there's an alignment issue with what they're approving and what Naperville needs. Thank you.

Thank you, any more speakers?

The petitioner now has five minutes available for rebuttal.

I know we have a question from a councilman, but Mr. Rossanova, do you want to rebuttal?

We're available for questions.

Councilman Olderer. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to commend Mr. Rossanova and Mr. Whitaker for, I mean, wonderful project here on the merits. ALSO, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE A FEW MONTHS AGO ABOUT INCLUDING NAMES OF MORE RECENT NEIGHBORHOOD HEROES, DIVERSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE DONE THINGS IN THE COMMUNITY. WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER CLOSELY ON THIS, AND I REALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. JUST KIND OF AS A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER, AS YOU'RE AWARE, MR. KRIEGER, IF YOU COULD CHIME IN HERE. Technically, there are streets in Naperville that have the word park in them. Candace Parker's name is two letters above our typical street name, so you would just need that to be included in the plat that we vote on, correct? Mr. Mayor? Mr. Krieger.

That is correct. It would not technically fit our normal naming conventions. However, if that's included in the motion, we will see that it's done.

Okay, perfect. And from my conversations with you, this dialogue is enough that if they include it in the plat, that's not an issue for you? It does not. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I also note that plenty of streets like Royal St. George are way, way, way over that number of letters. Just to talk a little bit about process, and thank you so much for participating in it. NAPER Settlement, the good folks at NAPER Settlement, put together a list of names of, you know, kind of diverse Naperville heroes and submitted that. Our Transportation Engineering Development Department, Ms. Loudon, Director Loudon and her staff took a look and narrowed it down to names that could fit. MR. ROSSANOVA INDICATED THAT THEY ARE VERY INTERESTED IN INCLUDING SOME OF THESE NAMES IN THE NEXT DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME UP BEFORE COUNCIL, WHICH I THINK IS AWESOME. JUST TO GIVE A PREVIEW, OBVIOUSLY, CANDICE PARKER WOULD BE FOR TONIGHT. TOM LAY, A CHINESE-AMERICAN BUSINESS OWNER. HE OWNED A BUSINESS IN DOWNTOWN NAPERVILLE IN 1860S, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS PRETTY NOTABLE. Dominique Rocca, so Rocca Drive. She's an immigrant from Tunisia, founded Sourcebooks, is the largest woman-owned publisher in America, still here. Peg Price, first female mayor of Naperville. Dr. Raja, crucial researcher at Fermilab, worked in quark subatomic particle research. Jamali Drive, I was saying Jamali, recent winner of the West Suburban Philanthropic Network Business of the Year, Maison Sabika, and so many others. Just really looking forward to seeing those names implemented. And Mr. Austin, I don't know if you wanted to say anything, but thank you.

Absolutely, thank you. And we appreciate the opportunity to participate. And thank you for bringing this to our attention early, where we could leave that designation on the platform.

Is there anybody else wishing to speak on this particular issue? Come forward now. Seeing no one, Councilman White may have a motion to close the public hearing. May I add a comment? Go ahead, Councilman.

Just a couple of questions. Great briefing, by the way. But I would, if you could comment maybe on our seniors. I know Mr. Doyle brought up a point on housing affordability and so on. But last time I looked at some of the data that our seniors were one of our fastest growing populations. So from a targeting standpoint, group that you're targeting, I think it seems to be on point. And with that said, where do you see these homes kind of averaging from a price standpoint? Where do you see the houses falling into?

I believe you're absolutely correct. Our fastest growing age demographic is the baby boomers. When we design any community, a lot of research goes into it. And one of the main data points is always our census data. And our census data shows that between 55 and 75 that continues to grow rapidly outpacing any other cohort. So that's why we believe this will be very appealing to that age demographic. And also when we look at the design of the site, we make it even more so appealing. And that's why at staff's request, we introduced the Taylor end units, which have visitability aspects, which is very important. And then also first floor primary to allow for aging in place. And then also having the association responsible for exterior maintenance makes it very appealing as well. You know, you could not have to worry about mowing the lawn. Maybe you could leave town and you know it's taken care of. And then the proximity to Monarch and then the path and then the park along the shared property line is also very important. And then proximity to transportation, open space areas. So it's definitely, appealing to that age demographic. Also, at an introductory or starting price point of $575,000, it really gives an opportunity for somebody to get new construction where you don't have to worry about deferred maintenance at a price which is consistent with our average household incomes, which are over $150,000. So although it doesn't meet IDA's classification for affordable, it's $575,000, which ties into our household income and we're all firm believers and anytime you increase supply and you increase competition you increase opportunity and that's what we're doing here and then we tie that into our 2020 housing needs assessment where we see that we're 13 000 homes short that's going to drive prices up unless we do a good job putting the inventory out there okay thank you thank you in the uh

Just to add one name to Councilman Holzhauer's, I think we were talking with Candace Parker, but we realized our first Hall of Famer is actually an NBA referee, Danny Crawford, who actually went to the NBA Hall of Fame, I believe, last year. So add him to the list as well. Thank you.

That's awesome.

Thank you.

Okay, Councilman White, may I have a motion to close the public hearing?

May I move to close the public hearing?

Councilman Holzhauer?

second old tower all those in favor of closing public hearing sign aye opposed public hearing is now closed j2 item j2 is a recommendation to pass an ordinance authorizing the fifth amendment to the annexation agreement for monarch landing to release the age restriction for lot 1b and establish a process for lot 2 for north gate of naperville councilman white may have a motion

I move the pass ordinance authorizing the Fifth Amendment to the annexation agreement for Monarch Landing to release the age restriction for lot 1B and establish a process for lot 2. Councilman Holzer?

Second. Holzer? Motion and a second on J2. Roll call.

Wilson?

Aye.

Worley?

Yes.

Gibson? Aye. Holzhauer? Aye. Jane? Aye. McBroom? Aye. Syed?

Aye. White? Aye. Motion passes 8-0. J3?

Item K-3 is a recommendation to pass an ordinance approving a major change to the Monarch Landing Plan Unit Development, a preliminary planned unit development plat with a deviation and a conditional use for a single family attached dwelling units for Northgate of Naperville.

Councilman White, may I have a motion? I move to pass the ordinance approving a major change to Monarch Landing Plan Unit Development, a preliminary planned unit development plat with a deviation and a conditional use FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS FOR NORTH GATE OF NAPERVILLE. COUNCIL HOLZER?

SECOND, HOLZER.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON J-3. ROLL CALL.

WORLEY?

YES.

GIBSON? AYE. HOLZER? AYE. JANE? AYE. MCBROOM?

AYE.

SYED?

AYE.

WHITE?

AYE.

WILSON?

AYE. J-4?

ITEM J-4 IS A RECOMMENDATION TO PASS AN ORDINANCE APPROVING YOUR PRELIMINARY PLATOUS SUBDIVISION FOR NORTH GATE OF NAPERVILLE.

And item J3, passed 8-0. Item J4, Councilman White, may I have a motion?

I move to pass the ordinance approving a preliminary plat of subdivision for Northgate of Naperville and authorizing a naming of street of Candace Parker.

Councilman Allsaur? Second, Allsaur. We have a motion and a second on J4. Roll call.

Gibson? Aye. Holzhauer? Aye. Jane? Aye. McBroom?

Aye.

Syed?

Aye.

White?

Aye.

Wilson? Aye. Worley?

Yes. Motion passes 8-0. J5?

Item J5 is a recommendation to pass the ordinance granting a temporary use for marketing signs for Northgate of Naperville.

Councilman White? I move to pass an ordinance granting a temporary use of marketing signs for Northgate of Naperville. Councilman Holzhauer? Second, Holzhauer.

We have a motion and a second on J5. Roll call. Roll call.

Polzhauer. Aye. Jane. Aye. McBroom.

Aye.

Syed.

Aye.

White.

Aye.

Wilson.

Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson. Aye.

Motion passes 8-0. Councilman White, M1.

I move to approve the award of bit 26-124. 34.45-12.47 power transformer to WEC transformer USA LLC for an amount not to exceed $4,096,400 plus a 3% contingency.

Councilman Holzer? Second, Holzer.

Okay, we do have one speaker on this. Yeah, I see you. We do have one speaker. Mr. Doyle?

All right, John Doyle, Naperville resident. You know, I didn't put this agenda together, but it's quite a juicy one, as you can see. So I'm asking tonight for a motion to table this item until the financial operations of our utility can be better understood. We have been told repeatedly that the reserve drawdowns went to stocking transformers, yet here we are buying another transformer. So I couldn't help but dig a little deeper into not only our budgets, but the utility's checkbook. And I believe there is evidence that the situation is not being properly represented to the council or to the public. And further investigation is needed before approving any further requisitions. Starting with the claim that the reserve spending that occurred between 2022 and 2024 went to increase spending on inventory stock. The budget books certainly don't tell that same story. In 2022, post-COVID delays, spending only caused an increase of $480,000. 2023 is quite explicit that only $2 billion of the increased spending is attributed to warehouse inventory. In 2024, the purchase budget is more than halved as the city moved to capitalize warehouse stock. Not only does this not explain the $30 million drawdown, the 2024 situation is especially troublesome. Because when the council voted on the rate plan in 2021, what we were sold and what was approved is a plan that fully paid for capital through rates, not through reserve spending. I can't find where that strategy change was discussed with the council anywhere during those years publicly. Were any of you honestly aware that this was happening with our reserves? Then there's the explanation that the growth forecasts were wrong, which is true. The problem is, A, we provided the growth forecasts, and B, the consultant is quite explicit that they don't evaluate the forecast, nor do they endorse them. They simply do the revenue requirement analysis based off of the data that we provide. This quote from them is on the last page of the 2021 rate study, right before the appendix, stating that very fact.

One more example.

In 2018, the cost of service study said rates needed to go up 3.7%. but the proposed rates cut revenue by 2% instead. On top of that, the PPA base change, quote, after review with management, took off another 2%, netting a 3.9% cut below current rates, which was eight points below what the cost of service study recommended. Even though the cost of service study very clearly suggests a rate increase, what was ultimately asked of the council was passing a 2% decrease year over year for three years in a row, and it changed the PPA, knowing that it would result in a revenue BELOW WHAT WAS REQUIRED TO COVER COSTS. THIS PATTERN REPEATS YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. THE CONSULTANT SAYS XYZ AND THEN AFTER QUOTE REVIEW WITH MANAGEMENT OUTPOPS ABC INSTEAD. SOMETHING HERE DOES NOT PASS THE SNIFF TEST. SO AGAIN I'M ASKING YOU TO TABLE THIS MOTION FOR $4 MILLION UNTIL YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE FINANCIAL OPERATIONS OF OUR UTILITY AND ITS RATE SETTING PRACTICES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DISCUSSION? We have a motion and a second on the table. Roll call.

Jane? Yes. McBroom? Aye. Syed? Aye. White? Aye. Wilson? Aye. Worley? Yes. Gibson? Aye. Holzhauer? Aye.

Motion passes 8-0. Councilman White, M2.

I move to approve the award of RFP 25-030 Citywide Camera Access to SDI Presence LLC for an amount not to exceed $8,293,111 plus a 3% contingency and for a three-year term. Councilman Malzauer?

Second, Oldsauer.

We have a motion and a second on M2. Roll call.

There are speakers, Mayor.

I'm sorry about that. Mr. Doyle again. All right, John Doyle, last time tonight.

I have two main issues with this item. First of all, is it really needed? Our safety scores are already world class, and for violent property crime in particular, ratings are significantly higher than national benchmarks. Our safety score is also above, our quality score is above our importance score, indicating that we are already exceeding expectations here. So I have to question if this should be a financial priority at all for the city right now. Seems like it would be much more impactful to invest in mobility, like what we're doing with the bike plan, or ironically with our utility, rather than spend this money on safety. I also have issues with the scope of the project, and honestly, lack of transparency in the request. This isn't just the maintenance and upgrades adding an additional 270 cameras to the network. Is that really necessary for a community like Naperville? Current safety ratings and crime stats would indicate no.

Then there's the transparency issue.

Where are these additional 270 cameras going and what kind of cameras are they? Genetech sells automated license plate reader cameras too. How many new cameras will those be? How do we know they won't be pointed at private property? No offense to Chief Aries, but I've seen enough shenanigans going on with our electric utility that I'm in trust but verify mode. The justification for this system is a report from a third-party consultant, but that report has not been attached to any agenda item on this topic. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect third-party reports to be attached to agendas when said reports are used for justification in the passing of ordinances. I'm going to get it via FOIA either way, so you're just putting in more work on the admins. I'm seeking a motion to table this. UNTIL THE KAFARI NEEDS ASSESSMENT THAT THE CITY PAID FOR IN 2024 THAT JUSTIFIES THE SUPPOSED EXPANSION OF POLICE SURVEILLANCE IS SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC AND CAN BE REVIEWED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER.

THE NEXT SPEAKER IS KEVIN GOULD FOLLOWED BY CHIEF ARIES.

CHIEF ARIES.

Before I begin, I did want to do an introduction because she's going to love the attention. With me tonight is the IT project manager, Kelly Neal, who is the IT project manager for the city on this camera project. She'll help a lot more if there's questions that get pretty far in the weeds on the project. Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this agenda item. I want to start by saying that while I'm the one presenting, there are a number of directors who could also be standing in front of you about this particular project because this system impacts and involves multiple departments throughout the city. Our conversation tonight is about modernizing, updating, and expanding citywide cameras and building access for the entire employee base. We intend to explain how we got here and what's being proposed, as well as to respond to some questions we've heard from citizens. Residents have understandably asked what the system can do, who can use it, how long information is retained, and what happens if someone misuses it. These are important things that we owe them answers to. A healthy conversation is important to transparent government and maintaining the public's trust in us and any technology or tool we're implementing as a city. So that's what we're going to try to do tonight. Before explaining what is being proposed, I want to give council some context about what exists today. The city currently operates 442 cameras across a number of departments. Most are located in or around city buildings, utility facilities, and other critical infrastructure. Our water and electric utilities use cameras to protect facilities and infrastructure that are essential to the community. Transportation uses cameras to evaluate resident concerns, confirm that signals and related equipment are operating properly, and assess the effect of changes to signal timing. The police department uses cameras primarily for event safety and to recover evidence when an incident occurs in an area covered by a camera. These cameras do not replace police work, but footage can help us determine what happened, identify involved individuals, and just as importantly, eliminate people who are not involved. With regard to building access, the City currently uses electronic access readers to control who can enter particular buildings, doors, and restricted areas. It allows the City to limit access based on employee, contractor, and volunteer responsibilities, documents use of the access credentials, and also allows the City to deactivate or modify credentials when needed. Our current systems have served the city since 2013. Tonight's proposal involves replacing aging equipment, consolidating disparate systems, and adding new coverage. The city currently operates three separate systems, one for the security cameras, one for traffic cameras, and one for building access control. These systems operate independently require separate administration, and have different support and storage needs. Much of the hardware is now at or nearing the end of its useful life, and the existing systems have significant storage limitations with little or no capacity for growth. A significant portion of this project involves replacing equipment that the city already owns. Without replacement, this equipment will become increasingly unreliable. This proposal also adds cameras and access control points and consolidates the systems to improve safety for our employees in our buildings, better protect our public buildings and critical infrastructure, continue to assist with criminal investigations, and give staff a centralized system rather than require them to work across multiple disconnected platforms. I should add it also upgrades servers for on-premise storage of the camera footage. The city hired a well-known security consultant, Ghaffari Associates, via RFP in 2024 to conduct an independent assessment of our existing camera and building access systems. Ghaffari examined the condition of the current technology, assessed city facilities and security needs, gathered feedback from employees, and recommended both the system design and the areas where additional coverage was warranted. City staff reviewed and refined Ghaffari's recommendations before incorporating them into a competitive request for proposals. Eight firms responded, and a multi-department city team evaluated the proposals. Staff selected SDI Presence as the preferred vendor to build, maintain, and technically support the city system, which they have also notably done for large clients like O'Hare and Midway airports. SDI does not independently decide where cameras or access points are located, who can access them, how recordings are used, how long they are retained, or when they are shared. Those decisions remain with the City and will be governed by City policy. The consultant made the recommendations, SDI will help implement them, and the City remains responsible and accountable for how the system is ultimately used. From an access control standpoint, this slide shows that the city currently covers 89 locations with 404 access readers. Across those 89 locations, the consultant is proposing 98 additional access readers, most around our water and electric utility infrastructure as well as at the police department. The city currently operates 442 cameras. Under the consultant's recommendation, approximately 200 of those existing cameras would be replaced because they have reached or are approaching the end of their natural life. Their useful life, excuse me, not natural. The project would also add approximately 270 cameras, primarily to improve building and infrastructure security. You'll see notable increases at the municipal center and NAPR settlement. These recommendations were based on the consultant's facility by facility security assessment. To be fully transparent, the proposed system also has capability to incorporate the use of automated and AI functionality, which will be strongly governed in accordance with city policy. As we expand this technology, we also have a responsibility to establish clear limits on how it can be used. Residents should expect that from us. We are not asking council or the public to simply trust that misuse will never occur. A responsible system should limit access, require a legitimate purpose, create an audit trail, and allow us to identify and address improper activity. First, cameras will be used for defined city purposes. covering what I mentioned earlier, protecting buildings and critical infrastructure, supporting traffic operations, maintaining safety at city facilities and events, and investigating incidents that occur in areas covered by a camera. Second, access to these systems would be based on an employee's department, responsibilities, and operational need. Investigative retrieval or export of footage would require a documented reason and, when applicable, an incident or case number. Third, the default retention period will remain the same as it is today, and that is 30 days. Footage will be automatically deleted unless it has been preserved for a documented evidentiary, legal, public records, or other authorized purpose. Fourth, activity within the system will be logged and reviewed. That includes employee use and vendor access, specifically SDI, for technical support. We will establish routine auditing procedures rather than waiting for a complaint before reviewing system activity. Additionally, the storage of video and access control logs will begin, again, as I mentioned earlier, maintained on premises, on city servers, which are also included in this proposal. SDI will help maintain and technically support the system, but it will not independently determine how cameras are used, who receives access, how long footage is retained, or when it can be shared. Again, as I mentioned earlier, those remain with us as the city. Finally, and probably most importantly, misuse will have consequences. Unauthorized access or use can result in immediate suspension of access and discipline up to and including termination, while also reviewing any misuse with the appropriate state's attorney's office for appropriate criminal charges. The objective is straightforward. This system should help us protect people, facilities, and infrastructure. And we're committed to putting the governance in place to make sure that's done responsibly. With that, all the directors tonight, Ms. Diehl, and I will take any questions.

Council. Council Member McBroom.

Thank you, Chief. Excellent. You know, we've all had a lot of questions, and the topic of cameras has been out there, and, you know, a fair amount of misinformation out there, and I think there's a fair amount of rational concerns, too. And, you know, when I sat down and talked to you, it made me feel more comfortable, and we've had talks about this. It's like, that's great, but then I can't just go out to the public and say, I talked to the Chief, and it's fine, right? um you know i know that you run a department with integrity and um you know i think everybody does i think our police are great um so i i guess some some questions here about well first the governance um and maybe this is a question for legal i mean is this something that we we codify you know i i don't You know, Will County, I saw you were quoted in the article about what Will County did. They did an ordinance. I didn't read the ordinance, but they did something, right?

They approved the request, all the IGAs for request of placement of LPR cameras on Will County roadways. They are talking about.

They're talking about doing an ordinance. Yes. So I don't, maybe that's something for council to consider or legal to weigh in. Does it make sense? Because, you know, I just don't, I don't think we've done a good job and I don't want to beat it that horse and just making the case for it, right? So there's a certain amount of public that's just like, I don't like these. I don't trust them. I don't understand. I don't know, you know, where my data's going. Is there abuse going on? And, you know, at the minimum, You know, publishing this information, you know, this presentation we'll put out and, you know, getting this, you know, having a link on our website. I know we have a link like about body cams and, you know, procedures around that. But, you know, at the very minimum having, you know, something on our website. But, you know, perhaps considering an ordinance. And then I'd like to maybe see in the future. you know, just some, some real data behind, you know, these, these are the results, you know, this is who we caught, you know, this is the stolen car that we found. This is, and these are, these are the real tangible things we can tell you about that, that this tool or these tools. And, you know, I know we're not talking about specifically license plate readers tonight, but I think we're in the same sphere, right. And the same concern. So yeah, As far as the proposal tonight, you know, I look at that general fund all the time, and I think the council, that should be the fund they look at the most. And I do think it's tight. You know, we have a tough time adding, you know, new public safety, whether it's fire and police. Each year it's a battle of, like, we could use more cops, right? But we can't. I mean, council last year kind of we had to add to the budget to add more police officers. I do, the 8.3, like, pops out at me, and it's like, I do think, you know, do we need all the, the 200 replacement, that's, to me, that's kind of like a no-brainer. We've had them a long time, but the 270 extra, it sounds like a shocking number to me, you know. 8.3, whatever it is. Is that $4 million? Is that $5 million? And I get a lot of that is temporary, right? It's a three-year contract with an extension. But is there room in there to use some of that money to instead put some more boots on the ground? So those are just kind of some of the thoughts that I've been thinking about. And I know you've said that the rank and file do want this tool, right? But know what's the roi you know i i hear a lot of neighborhoods in town and i i don't think it's because our cops aren't doing their job but you know maybe we don't have enough cops i mean i hear a lot like i never see a cop in my neighborhood i never see um you know someone patrolling through my neighborhood and it just makes me think like maybe we need another car and another cop and instead of another camera so anyway those are just kind of my my high level thoughts um but I'll kind of turn it over.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I guess I had similar thoughts. And I know, Chief, we've talked about similar security or privacy concerns or issues and whatnot in the past about various things that have come up with regard to cameras and whatnot. And I guess myself too had similar concerns. I guess, you know, out of the 8 million here, the big number that stands out is 6.6, which is for construction and implementation. I guess without getting too much into the weeds here, I was wondering if IT can speak? Because I know some of it's for labor, there's licensing, you know, obviously the additional cameras are going to cost some amount. Hardware, is there like some percentage as to where this is majority of it's going or is it evenly distributed?

Because this is a complete new network, so it's a complete fiber network, complete storage, all servers, everything. So that is your base infrastructure that needs to be built out. So that really doesn't even include the camera part. That's really the base infrastructure.

Okay. Thanks. I guess, you know, just similar comments to Councilman McBroom. Just hearing from residents where, you know, the contact, you know, me and others here about speeding or obviously the e-bikes and, you know, we've had conversations about, you know, patrolling 16 year old kids or whatever, but at the same time, you know, just in my head, I'm wondering if there's a way to reduce some of those costs to allocate to other potential officers, despite, you know, what people say against, you know, bikes or e-bikes or whatever. So, yeah, I mean, those are some of my, you know, initial thoughts. But I will say, too, sorry to caveat this, too, I will say that it's obviously certainly important to... you know, have security around our infrastructure, you know, obviously water, electricity, the municipal centers too. So I'm not discounting that at all. Thank you. Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chief, for the presentation. contextualizing the asks, right? You know, 2013 was when we had the system implemented. So I can certainly understand the update. I think for me, I have a few more questions that kind of echo some of the concerns already brought up. Number one, the expansion of 270 cameras. primarily for building and infrastructure security needs. I kind of would like to have more information. Like you mentioned Naper Settlement as one of the infrastructure, like what is the background around that? What are the needs? If there could be some more detail about that, I would appreciate that.

So I can start from the high level and if I miss anything. So Naper Settlement hosts a lot of, I mean, I'm going to clue you in on what you all know, but I think it's important to verbalize. There's a lot of fests now that happen in Naper Settlement. There's a lot of field trips with our children and folks throughout it. So the ask was to have – the cameras are a force multiplier for people. You know, you have X amount of people keeping an eye on things. God forbid something happens, the cameras are a great resource to retrieve that. So it would be securing those facilities for our youth that are attending there regularly as well as all the festivals that are hosted at the neighbor settlement. I don't think that was the bulk of the ask for that.

Okay. And – the breakdown of how that would be distributed. Do you have those numbers? I apologize if you shared that.

Is that the slide right here, Councilwoman?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, great. The second question I had was with regard to the new tools of these cameras to be automated and AI governing. Can you elaborate what that means?

Absolutely. So let me start with the context of, because this will be predominantly a police-related function, I think is fair to say. So for me to speak to this, police, whether it's a missing person, a suicidal person, a crime in progress, we're chasing seconds, minutes, and hours. And sometimes we get information. So the AI tool that we're talking about here, let's go worst case scenario. There's a kidnapping that happens in Naperville, and it's in a green pickup truck. So the ability would be to type into this system green pickup truck. That would search the security cameras that you see up on the screen here to pick up any green pickup trucks that came across the security cameras. Something that would take human eyes probably weeks to go through all of these cameras and all of these times, at least the ones on public ways, to really search in, was there a green pickup truck? And when we're chasing, especially with the horrific example I gave of a kidnapping, seconds and minutes matter. But even a missing person, whether it's a dementia patient or someone that's suicidal, those seconds and minutes matter. So it allows the system to quickly comb through the footage, is there even a green pickup truck, for the example that I said, on our security cameras? That alone doesn't independently give the police department cause for action. We still have to verify that like any system that we currently use. So it may create a lead for us. We may be able to check an area, but that doesn't automatically, we're going to stop that car. We're going to arrest the driver, right? We have to do it. We have a threshold that we have to meet as part of our, so it's, it's really a tool to help us close that gap that we lose after a crime occurs or a missing person occurs, things of that nature.

Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. Now would only certain authorized individuals have access to the ability to do those searches?

Yes, and in the system, that would require a case number. I can't speak too far in the weeds yet to what Genetech offers, but every system I've seen, at minimum, you have a case number and a reason that you have to enter for those types of searches. So I don't know if we can get that far in the weeds with this system. Yeah, and I know SDI. I don't know if you're curious about that. No, I'm sure there's a security control built in there that we would have for those types of searches. That's why I referenced case numbers and types of incident earlier in the presentation.

Okay, and... You know, while I agree that, you know, the reputation of our city is held high, you know, I'm also thinking of those worst case scenarios where there could be abuses, right? And so I do appreciate the monthly review and the annual review and the audits there, but are there any models out there for third party audits, you know, where there's an independent body reviewing?

The only thing I can speak to is if the different product I have, I do have a third party company putting together and working on an audit for one of our different systems that I don't want to get into tonight. But because of the capabilities of that company and what I'm asking them to do and the realization that they may be able to, I don't want to completely speak for them, but it would be the same ask that I'm asking this other company. So I would say anything's possible. I just haven't identified that company yet that does those independent audits.

It's an area I'm interested in investigating more in.

And I am too, totally agree.

Because abuses can happen internally, right? And then if those are the same people doing the audits, then that's when we can run into some problems.

So can I answer that real quick? I think it's really important for this. You know, something I promised five years ago and many of you on the dais spoke to me about was absolute integrity and accountability. And that's something that if you look at what I've, I cannot promise you that we will be perfect. I think 99.9% of the time, but I will never give you an absolute. But what I can control and I promise, and I have a track record in five years of demonstrating, if you make a mistake of this magnitude and abuse this system, You won't work for the city anymore. And I will go to what I said in the presentation. We will work with the state's attorney's office to seek criminal charges for that. That's what we can control on that. We can never control. I don't want to put a misnomer out there that we have absolute control over everyone. But we have absolute control on our actions, which is why that audit you brought up is done by a commander with our police department who is our internal affairs commander. That's who would help take this responsibility on because it can't be – I'm not going to put that on an end user. It's going to be with responsible management staff of the police department.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilman Syed. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. chief great presentation thank you for this and as you know naperville is one of the best police in the country and we all proudly talk about this thing you know how do we justify this 8.2 million expenses on cameras and my follow-up question is that do we have any other cities who are having these cameras And how much did they have spent? Did we have some record of this thing? And my third question is, as my colleague on the desk said, hiring boots on the ground, will that help us more, you know?

So I will use our benchmark cities as a comparison. Almost, if not all of them, have similar camera systems. Overland Park, Kansas, who I've seen firsthand, has more cameras than we do. Almost every intersection has traffic cameras. Other areas have city cameras everywhere for the exact reasons. And not just, again, I know I'm answering a lot of questions, so I'm sure my colleagues appreciate that, but every one of them could speak to the needs that other departments have in this space. And there's probably success stories. I know I spoke to the electric department earlier today via email, and part of this is we have had a substation broken into, and that was a big push for adding cameras throughout the substation. So think about the concerns we would have with substation or water treatment facilities being burglarized or potentially destroyed. vandalized or worse. Success stories, I'll give you three and I don't know that you can put a dollar amount. I think you'd all agree on these. There was a shooting in the downtown a few years ago. The cameras greatly aided in our follow-up investigation to that. Many of these teen takeovers have fights where suspects run. The cameras, absolutely, which we are admittedly monitoring during these teen takeovers, aided us in suspect apprehension. We've had a young man run from us that we used the cameras to follow with a backpack and a gun retrieved from him once we stopped him. So there's just three off the top of my head. I hate bringing up the riots because of how difficult a night that was for the city. but I can tell you firsthand as someone that was in the command post as a deputy chief watching the cameras, I guided detectives that were out there working on the street to two individuals that had burglarized one of our jewelry stores. So there's firsthand, I witnessed it, I guided our people to those that were responsible for that and they were apprehended as a result of us using those cameras. So it's just having that extra view and that force multiplier for our eyes out there. And I said this, the councilman, admittedly, we talked earlier today and he brought up the police officer thing. Cops will always say, yes, we want more cops. But if it was at the expense of the cameras, you would get some real pause because of the benefits we have reaped from this system and what they can do for us from an investigative standpoint. In terms of, I think I missed, was there one other question in there?

Councilman, your speaker. You want to push your button?

Sorry. What are the other cities who are using this? And last was, you know, having more police officers will help us to, you know, add this thing. Yeah.

So I think I just answered the police officer. Of course, having more police officers would be great. One, to your point about the neighborhoods, isn't going to help what we need a minimum of four. And I don't know at that point where that ROI really benefits for this neighborhood presence that we're talking about in that. A lot of those cases, we do go back and are able to prove we're in those areas. It's just if you're not looking, we may have driven by. I hate to say no cops right now, but the cameras are very important. I did talk to our staff today to make sure I wasn't misquoting. Again, everybody would like more police officers, but not at the expense of the benefits we reap from the camera system as well.

Okay.

One last follow-up question. Go ahead. So what are the risks we as a city will carry, and what will be the liability on the city for this? I'm sorry, my ears. What are the risks as a city? We will have it. And what liability we will carry on this? Any challenges?

Mr. DeSanto, you want to try that? Could you repeat that for me, Councilman?

The risk and liability.

He's asking about liability that would be potentially attributed to having a system like this.

Well, it's a lot about the policies that we implement and how we protect and follow the statutes that are out there. There are already existing architecture of statutes which require municipalities to retain records and to participate with transparency laws. And so I think our biggest liability is when we deviate from the protections that are already put in place. And I know that in the contracts that we have and in the applications and the training about how we implement these things, we follow all of those rules. And so I believe that we are well protected from a liability standpoint.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. DeSanto, maybe I'll ask the contrasting question. What liability do we have if we don't implement some of these security protocols in say our parking garage and somebody gets assaulted or something?

I CAN'T SAY NECESSARILY THAT OUR LIABILITY IS INCREASED. HOWEVER, OUR ABILITY TO CARRY OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY CAN BE MINIMIZED. IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO DO BETTER AND WE DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE, THAT'S SUBJECT TO CRITICISM. I think there's also immunities and protections that don't require this, but it's also out there as an available resource. And so it's really a policy decision about the breadth of which we access that.

Chief, you're requesting 23 cameras in the downtown business district, CBD, most of those in the parking decks. My understanding is we still have a high capacity level of calls for service in those parking garages. Can you give us some feedback on will these cameras potentially help curb some of that? What those stats currently look like and what we might see if we have the additional cameras there?

The additional cameras in there from the obvious standpoint would give us the ability to see when crowds start to gather in there where problems are there and we can get an earlier intervention in there to start enforcing the trespassing and break up the groups that are causing problems in the parking decks because there were a lot of blind spots. Again, these were Ghaffari's recommendations as they assessed the city to help us where we could use those extra cameras so it was nice to get that independent view of it. So I absolutely think these would help us in the parking decks.

Do you have an idea how many calls for service we get in the parking decks?

You never ask a numbers guy to be exact on numbers without it in front of them. It's hundreds. That's not an exaggeration. Yes. Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Chief, for the presentation. you and I, and the whole team that has worked on this project. I know it's been a team effort across the city. You and I have talked about this topic for the last year and a half, and just kind of where on the spectrum of public safety and privacy we lay on. My guess is if we ask everybody in this room, everybody in the city, everybody has a different comfort level of what amount of privacy we're willing to give up for public safety. You know, I'm a parent. I could track my kids all the time, make them wear a GoPro. I don't track their phone, but that's a decision I make for my family. It's a lot different when we're up here as decision makers. And we do obviously have, you know, a big obligation for public safety, especially for some of these, you know, public works department, water infrastructure, electric infrastructure. And there's no doubt, you know, if we put up a camera on every street corner, the police would be able to you know keep us safer but where that line is is what i'm struggling with and i don't know if i've seen enough i recognize that this is what the consultant recommended these cameras in these locations um for example 60th amina's pool center stands out to me because we've done a lot at the municipal center over the last couple years to actually I don't know if lock it down is the right word, but we've controlled access. We now have security guard here at night. We've limited public access to the building. So I would like to see more information about some of these locations and the justification and where we're drawing this line. Also, I hear a lot about policies and controlled access. AI and the cameras. I'd like to see the policies on the front end before we approve a contract of this size, both in monetary value and scope of number of cameras. I'd like to pause on this until we get more clear answers on that. I also think that gives the community the opportunity to learn more about this. I think it's a good opportunity to build trust between the city and the community. So I think this warrants a larger conversation and some policies on the front end. I do recognize that there's things in this contract that might be time sensitive. I think this is bundled together with key card access. I don't know how easy it is for things like that to be separated out. I do hear that it's, and the big bulk of the contract is wires and infrastructure. So if it's all bundled together, I'm still a pause. If there's parts that staff feels comfortable bringing together sooner rather than later, that's fine, but I will be a no tonight.

Okay, we have a motion and a second on M2, roll call.

McBroom?

No.

Syed?

No.

White?

No.

Wilson?

No.

Worley?

Yes.

Gibson? No. Holzhauer? Aye. Jane? No.

Motion fails, 2-6. New business. Is there a reminder or new business for items this council is asking staff to bring back on a future agenda or for motions to reconsider past city council votes? Councilman McBrew. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, seeing none, may I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

Second, all in favor?

All those in favor sign aye.

Aye.

We're adjourned, thank you.