City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the May 19 Thank you. Naperville City Council meeting. Roll call.

Worley? Here. Gibson? Here. Holzaur? Here. Jane? Kelly?

Here.

McBroom?

Here.

Syen? Here. White? Here. Wilson?

Here. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Before we begin tonight, I wanna take a moment to focus on one of our own. Our electric director, Brian Growth, was involved in a serious accident on Saturday evening when he was struck by a vehicle. This is a very difficult time for Brian and his family.

I ask our community to join us in keeping them close and in our thoughts during this difficult time. First on our agenda is awards and recognition, and councilman McBroom is the mayor pro tem who will be presenting tonight.

Yes. Thank you. So the Accessibility Community Task Force and the Advisory Commission on Disabilities annually recognizes the efforts of students in the community who make a difference in the lives of people with disabilities by removing barriers and stereotypes for their fellow students. All of tonight's awards recipients were nominated by teachers and administrators from Community Unit District two zero three and Indian Prairie School District two zero four. This year, the ACTF and the ACD will recognize six outstanding students and we will start with Seth.

Amigatz? Amigatz. Seth is a four year student at Connections Transition Services, is recognized for his exceptional dedication and leadership within the Naperville community. Seth has spent the last four years transforming his passion for service into professional excellence, transitioning from diverse volunteer roles to a competitive position in the private business sector. As a visionary leader at Connections Corner and the Micro Connections Lab, Seth pairs his technical creativity with an infectious enthusiasm that inspires both his peers and staff.

Seth's kindness and unwavering work ethic embody the very best of District 203. Next, if we can have Dia Gupta come up. Dia Gupta there you go is an exceptional peer in the Naperville North High School Multi Needs program. She brings positivity and energy to the classroom and promotes friendship and inclusion. Dia is an active member of Best Buddies, is an adapted PE peer, and part of the Reading Buddies program.

She spends time with students both in school and out of school. She's a phenomenal individual. Next up, Joshua Haynes. Joshua Haynes is recognized for his remarkable transformation and exemplary service within the adapted physical education program at Waubonsee Valley High School. After beginning his journey as a student navigating his own challenges, Joshua has flourished in his senior year as a dedicated peer partner.

He now stands as a pillar of leadership using his competitive spirit to uplift others rather than than just himself. He exhibits exemplary contributions to his peer partner activities marked by tremendous personal growth, effective leadership, and a positive, encouraging presence that inspires others to participate and succeed. Next up, we have Alexandra Krumdik. As a dedicated Best Buddies president and adapted PE leader, Lexi has been an exemplary force for inclusion at Naperville North High School. She goes above and beyond to advocate for students with disabilities, ensuring every individual feels a true sense of belonging in our school and community.

She plans events and spends time with her best buddies friends and attends best buddies leadership conferences. Lexi's commitment to fostering a welcoming environment makes her an outstanding role model who will undoubtedly continue to make a positive impact in the future. Next we have Vivian Murphy. Vivian, a senior at Naperville Central High School, is an extraordinary leader whose commitment to students with special needs is rooted in deep empathy and personal passion. Serving as a dedicated peer leader in adapted art and a steadfast participant of Team two zero three Fire Special Olympics, Vivi does not just volunteer, she builds genuine lasting friendships ensuring every peer feels valued and included.

Her commitment is non momentary. It is sustained, intentional, and rooted in who she is as a person. And last but not least, we have Finnegan O'Toole. Finnegan O'Toole is a remarkable student leader whose dedication to empathy, integrity, and radical inclusion has transformed his school community. Whether in the classroom or as a dedicated partner with Matea Valley Special Olympics and regional athletics, Finn leads with patience and genuine partnership, breaking down barriers and ensuring every peer feels valued.

His commitment to teamwork, perseverance, and inclusion extends beyond the classroom and into athletics where he continues to lead by example. His leadership and unwavering commitment to uplifting others make him a deserving recipient of this recognition, and he leaves behind a legacy of kindness and advocacy. Okay. Well, thank you very much and congratulations. Okay.

Alright. Next we have Memorial Day and National Moment of Remembrance. You guys want to come on up? Memorial Day National Moment of Remembrance, 05/25/2026. Whereas Memorial Day each year serves as a solemn reminder of the scourge of war and its bitter aftermath of sour sour.

Sorrow, sorry. And whereas our men and women in uniform have sacrificed their lives to maintain the security of our great nation and the liberties we hold dear. And whereas the United States Congress is a joint resolution, in a joint resolution approved 05/11/1950, provided that Memorial Day should be set aside as a day of prayer for permanent peace and whereas the Judd Kendall VFW Post thirty eight seventy three, the American Legion Post forty three, and the dedicated volunteers of the Naperville Memorial Day Parade will hold memorial observances on 05/25/2026 in honor of those who have given the ultimate sacrifice to our nation. And whereas residents are invited to pause in an act of national unity for one minute minute of silence at 3PM as part of the national moment of remembrance. Now therefore, I, Scott Worley, mayor of City Of Naperville, do high do hereby proclaim 05/25/2026 as Memorial Day and national moment of remembrance in the city of Naperville.

Okay. So now we have the VFW buddy poppy days, May 20 05/24/2026. Whereas, the annual distribution of Buddy Poppies by the veterans of foreign wars of the United States has been officially recognized by government leaders since 1922. And whereas, the VFW Buddy Poppies are assembled by disabled veterans and the proceeds of this worthy fundraising campaign are used exclusively for the benefit of veterans and their families. And whereas the basic purpose of the annual distribution of Buddy Poppies by the veterans of foreign wars is eloquently reflected in the desire to honor the dead by helping the living.

Now, therefore, I, Mayor Scott Worley, mayor of the city of Naperville, do hereby proclaim May twenty four twentieth through the twenty fourth two thousand twenty six as VFW Buddy Poppy Days in the City of Naperville, and urge all patriotic citizens to wear a Buddy Poppy as a visible evidence of our gratitude to the men and women of this country who have risked their lives in the defense of the freedoms which we continue to enjoy as American citizens and request the citizens of Naperville to recognize the merits of this cause by contributing generously to its support through donations to Buddy Poppies on the days set aside for the distribution of those symbols of appreciation for the sacrifices of our honored dead and those who continue to serve.

Bob Colby, the Poppy chairman for the VFW Post. I'd like to first start off with saying how grateful we are for the tremendous support we get as veterans from the city, the city government, and the citizens of this great city. As you said, Poppy Day is coming up, twentieth through the twenty fourth. You'll see volunteers around town, mostly at the food stores, distributing poppies. The red poppy flower has been a remembrance of those who we lost, who gave the sacrifice for over one hundred years.

The money we raise here helps us do the things we do all year, like sending a bus to Heinz every month, Christmas gift cards to the veterans, supporting organizations like the Midway Shelter for Homeless Veterans, etcetera, all part of the VIA VIAW program that is Remembering the Dead by Supporting the Living. We thank you for your support.

Next on the agenda is public forum. I'd like to remind everyone of the citizen participation rules in the city's municipal code for speaking at city council meetings. Speakers are asked to present their comments in a respectful and courteous manner. Speakers should stay on topic and be cognizant of their words. Personal attacks on council members, staff, other speakers, or members of the audience are not allowed.

If inappropriate language or comments are expressed during this meeting, you will be asked immediately to stop commenting. Also, for audience members, there is no cheering and no jeering. Actions such as applauding, cheering, finger snapping, booing, or any other noises during or at the conclusion of any remarks made by any speaker are not allowed. If this occurs, you will be asked to stop immediately. And if it continues to persist, I will recess the meeting until the audience abides by the rules in our city code.

No speaker should ever feel intimidated by the crowd. Audience disruption is meant to intimidate those speaking, and I will not allow it in the chambers. Audience members with signs, the signs must not block any other audience member's view. Speakers will be given three minutes to address the city council. To help speakers stay within the three minute time frame, we have a timer, rather, located on the side dais to your right.

It will give the visual cue when the three minutes are expiring. This helps speakers conclude their comments in a timely manner without being cut off. The timer will buzz when it hits zero, and we will alert the speaker that their time is up. If a speaker's name is called and they are not in the room, we will move on to the next speaker, and we will not go back. Speakers are encouraged to remain in council chambers until the conclusion of public forum in the event council members want to ask follow-up questions. Also, when your name is called, please come and have a seat in the front row. Mrs. Schotts, please call the speakers.

There were two written comments posted to the city's website. We have six speakers this evening. The first three speakers are Derek Adam Hoover, Whitney Glowacki, and Bill Simon.

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

Morning, everyone. Happy evening. Sorry. I'm getting back to you about what we spoke about a couple months ago about my request for an amendment to the e bike law. I've got little to no conversation back from any of the senators that are sponsoring the bill.

Two of them did say they were going to set up meetings with me. And since in that time, I've heard nothing back from any of them. I've been sending two to three emails a week to all their offices. Most recently, Jenny Gangroer's office reached out to Michelle Paul, director of the offices of legislative affairs. She's now been in almost daily contact with me, telling me that the time has passed for this, that because the senators didn't get back to me, they've chosen to listen to other municipalities and base their decision on what other municipalities have done.

When I brought to her attention what we were trying to pass and what this board unanimously accepted And the way it was written by Mr. DeSanto, I forward that along to everyone involved. They basically decided that it was not passed in Naperville, so they're not going to take it into account. So I'm basically here asking for your help if there's anyone you know you can reach out to Because I'm exhausting basically a full time job right now trying to get some movement on this. Because again, I've read all 69 pages of it today.

And it makes no sense to me, to be quite honest. The fact that they're going to continue to allow 15 and up to ride high speed vehicles on the road under the guise that they're going to make people register them and insure them, we all know that's not going to happen. The majority of people that are going to be forced to do that are older people my age who use them to get to the trains and back to cut down on traffic. But the younger kids who are riding are just gonna continue to ride. And to take them from families like mine who ride lower speed bikes responsibly, I just don't understand how the bill thinks that in any way is protecting the public.

Again, my e bikes, the ones my kids ride, go slower than my 10 speed bike. I can get on my roller blades and go faster than I can on my e bike. But yet they're saying that this is somehow a public safety issue and that they've made the determination based on, again, what's been passed at other municipalities. I think what you guys wrote was highly proactive. I also brought to their attention that this that here in Naperville, we passed an e bike law long before the state ever even considered it.

And that you guys have proven to be much more thought out about it. And again, did something before the state did. So that's why I'm here today. If anyone has the time, and I know you're all busy, if anyone has the time or the means to speak to anyone in regards to and let them know this city's concern, I would greatly appreciate it because I'm really wearing myself down and trying to get some movement on this because I just don't think it's right to take it away from families. And you guys all know what I proposed, And I still think that it's more than fair. And I've also brought to their attention, at the very least, leave it up to municipalities then. If they took it into account that other municipalities have passed laws, which it even says here, it goes as young as 12, then let the municipalities make the decisions about the lower speed bikes. Because again, they're unsafe. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Whitney Gloacke followed by Bill Simon.

Alright. I'm here to discuss my severe disappointment with Naperville Park District. The fifteen year cycle of replacing park equipment is the latest example of wasted resources, wasted taxpayer money, and appalling lack of concern for ecosystems or residential communities in Naperville decisions. I'm here as a checks and balances on other departments as well that are failing to make responsible choices for communities over private business desires. I'm calling out departments that are failing to listen to residents' concerns and failing to protect ecosystems we interact with on a daily basis.

I'll start with the lack of communication to residents directly affected by park renovations. The park district claims there was a two week capital projects open house event in twenty twenty five of July. I represent a group of families from Spring Hill with children that play at the parks almost daily. We saw no physical notifications at the park about any open houses or input for our imminent future park. Information on the website is not enough.

There were no physical notifications passed out in the neighborhood or mailed to our addresses about getting input for the new park. The only communication about the parks I remember is when I voted against it in renovations for community survey. Whatever efforts were taken to inform the public, they didn't work. All the Spring Hill residents with no children are now surprised, which means the Parks Department has failed miserably to communicate their actions and effects to the residents they serve. The Parks Department needs a better residential communications department for future projects.

The Park District has failed to prove that every park needs to be removed and replaced. There is not a legally binding proof that requires every beloved safe and functional park equipment to be completely removed and put in a landfill for fifteen years. Now on to the appalling lack of concern for earth, ecosystems, and natural resources in Naperville by multiple departments. I've contacted multiple departments about the plastic netting, also known as erosion control blankets, that are contaminating Naperville soil everywhere construction is done. Naperville is actively paying private landscaping companies to add microplastics to our water and soil by allowing erosion blanket erosion control blanket installation.

Spring Hill has been actively seeking drainage maintenance for the waterways connected to Spring Hill, and we've been ignored for two years by multiple departments. I want my money going to removing the plastic and trash from ecosystems surrounding residential streets and parks. I want my money going to companies that operate out of Naperville to improve our local economy. I want my money going towards maintenance of our natural resources in a sustainable way, not just or I want maintenance, not replacement. I have been begging Naperville Government Departments for three years to make small changes that can make big impacts.

This park project just proves my point about Naperville's government departments wasting resources, wasting taxpayer money. I'm severely disappointed in Naperville is treating earth like a trash can.

Thank you. Next speaker.

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

Morning, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Bill Simon, and I'm speaking for Naperville Preservation Inc. As you will recall, I highlighted at the last meeting that May is National Historic Preservation Month. Also in honor of the month, we're highlighting another accomplishment, the publication of Progress Through Preservation, which Naperville Preservation Inc.

Prepared after extensive research and in person meetings with most of you. You received a digital copy earlier this month, and a hard copy was mailed to you in the past few days, so you should all have this. The document compares Naperville's preservation efforts with 30 other communities, outlining the relative number of local landmarks and historic districts. It is a fortunate coincidence that also on tonight's agenda is a discussion about the workload in the city's planning office. Some city's planning departments include at least one full time preservation planner.

Some other cities have planners who spend half the time on preservation. Naperville has one planner who spends approximately 15 percent of their time on preservation. So please accept this report and consider how historic preservation can make Naperville an even better community. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Ted Bouillard followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council members, and residents of Naperville. I'm Ted Bouillard with a couple minutes with Nest. First, I'd like to give a quick shout out to the city's sustainability department about their wildly successful composting event held a week ago on Saturday, May 9. Long lines of cars filled with buckets and bags and shovels and folks showed up before and during and after posted hours at both city locations to receive free compost.

Kudos go out to Midwest Compost LLC for donating compost to the city, to Groot for transporting the compost containers, and especially to Ben Mielsonis and Peyton Shield for organizing, promoting, and for shoveling in support of this great event. Looking ahead, we're two months away from the city's next Styrofoam recycling event that will take place the morning of Saturday, July 18. Save your Styrofoam and participate in the city's event to help keep this stuff out of our landfills. See the city's website for more details. Pivoting to last night's monthly community meeting, Nest hosted green builder Craig Schneider who spoke to Batavia's energy audit initiative with a presentation entitled how a home energy audit saves money and cuts emissions.

On June 15, Nest will host speakers from the Citizens Utility Board, Naperville's very own Ben Mulesness, and some of NEST's climate coaches to share with you a road map you can use to lower your utility bills by improving your home's energy efficiency. For more information, please go to sustainnaperville.org. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer followed by Laura Leone. Okay. Good evening.

Property owners in Naperville should be aware of how utility work within private easements is engineered, reviewed, and carried out. Years ago, utilities routinely provided property owners with engineering plans showing easement locations and evacuation excavation areas before work began. That is no longer standard practice. City staff says they cannot require utility companies to share plans even when work affects private property. They also state that the city conducts only a very limited review and that applicants and their design professionals are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the application materials they submit.

As a result, applications may proceed without accurate easement information or even a platter survey. Engineering diagrams can contain significant inaccuracies. This is particularly problematic because some engineering diagrams are now being generated using AI and unreliable source material such as Google Maps. One plan we obtained showed two buildings and two addresses on our parcel where only one exists and no marked easements. Another failed to accurately show fences, utility pet pedestals, and property features.

It appeared to place a property lines through our parcel rather than marking easements. A property A properly prepared diagram would have clearly identified the correct work area. Contractors sometimes change installation methods or routes into the field because of unmarked buried utilities and overcrowded easements. Without independent inspection, it can be difficult for property owners to determine whether cables and conduit were appropriately installed. This problem creates significant potential for error and abuse.

Property owners should be should independently verify that utility work affecting their property is accurate, properly located, and fully restored. I recommend to photograph areas as soon as you become aware that utility work may appear on or near your property. Insist on obtaining engineering plans from the utility or Naperville code enforcement. Compare those plans with your property survey to confirm easement locations. Photograph bore pits and disturbed areas before they are covered and restored. Report concerns to both the utility and the city. Ensure all disturbed areas are properly and promptly restored. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The final speaker is Laura Leone. Good evening.

I am a resident of Naperville, and I'm also an immigration lawyer. And I would like to speak on regards to the ordinance Naperville due process and municipality property ordinance. The reason why I'm speaking about this right now is because I have to leave home because I'm breastfeeding, so I can't stay late for the actual ordinance to be addressed before the city. Naperville has long valued dignity and belonging and respect of all its residents. This ordinance affirms the city's commitment to constitutional protections guaranteed under the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendment, including due process.

The fourteenth amendment specifically applies the protections of the federal bill of rights to the states and local governments. Be reminded that the tenth amendment states the power not delegated to The United States by its constitution nor forbid it to it by it to the states are reserved to the states respectfully to the people. This means that if the constitution does not specifically give a power to the federal government, it does not forbid states from exercising it. The states can create and enforce its own laws in those areas. This includes licensing, education, family law, and sometimes criminal law matters.

Local governments can create laws and policies like zoning rules, local policy and policies, business permits, curfews, and municipality codes as long as they do not conflict with state law or federal law. As such, this ordinance, Naperville due process municipality property ordinance number 26 dash zero six fourteen, that it does not interfere with federal law, and it respects federal law. It's very important to clarify the use of city property. The ordinance clarifies that the city owned property should not be designated as a staging area for civil immigration enforcement activities. This is about the city's authority to use its own property and resources.

Sometimes municipalities have the authority to manage. Additionally, the ordinance does not override federal law or interfere with federal immigration enforcement. It explicitly allows access with valid judicial warrant or court orders if presented to ensure compliance with federal and state laws. This ordinance does not interfere with federal government or its does. Rather, this order in its provides its agents of the federal government and state authorities to use city owned property.

We cannot allow federal agents to show up in our communities without properly requesting permission to use such public spaces. We need to ensure that the residents of Naperville are protected, including our immigrant community, like myself. Naperville has the authority to regulate its use of its own facilities, personnel, and resources. The ordinance explicitly allows access pursuant to valid judicial warrant or court order. The ordinance operates within its constitutional boundaries while respecting federal law. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more speakers? Our next item is council public forum. As a reminder for the code, council members have three minutes to speak during public forum. Can speak up to two times.

Do any council members have an item for public forum? I want to address miss, I believe is the correct pronunciation regarding her concerns regarding the Park District. You know, obviously, the city doesn't have any oversight over the Park District replacement cycle of their equipment. But with regard to your other concern and erosion control mats and those being plastic. I think that's something that we can certainly look at and investigate.

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

Thank you mayor. Just had one to address the the build act that was been has been discussed. So I'm not just gonna read this. Recently, some members of the council took to social media to discuss the build act. It's a proposal intended to address housing shortages across Illinois.

While I appreciate the state's effort to address housing affordability, I do not believe a one size fits all mandate from Springfield is the right solution for Naperville. It is also important to remember that this proposal is still in its early stages with no final decisions made. That is exactly why conversations like this should be rooted in thoughtful dialogue, facts, community input, not fear or political rhetoric. I think most of most on this diocese want our public safety officials, our teachers, health care workers, young families, seniors, and other essential members of our workforce to have a opportunity to live in the community that they serve. It is somewhat hypocritical when we praise the people who make our community great but have not but have not done enough to create opportunities for them to live where they work.

Think about the many large cities across the country similar to Chicago. Some require public employees to live within the community they serve. I'm not suggesting Naperville adopt those same policies, but I do believe it is important to understand the spirit behind why those policies exist. At the end of the day, one of the greatest strengths of being a home ruled municipality is that Naperville has the authority to make locally driven balanced decisions that address housing affordability while protecting the character and integrity of our neighborhoods. That is the approach that I will that will best serve Naperville now and into the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Alzar.

Thank you mayor. First, I wanna give a shout out to neighbors settlement and to thank them. If some of you remember a couple of months ago, a number of council members threw out the idea of adding some diversity to naming the streets in Naperville. And the settlement provided some historical research on some names of notable diverse Naperville residents in all kinds of ways who contributed to our community. Also want to give out a shout out to some of our developers specifically Ross and Ober and Whitaker, I know have been, the attorneys for the developers have been open to incorporating some names in their next subdivision, so just a lot of good progress on that.

Another thing I just wanted to bring up with regard to both Nabors Settlement and the Riverwalk. As many of you know, the Riverwalk has a 2031 master plan. Many of the upgrades that are contemplated in that have either been done or we have groundbreaking on them this year in time for the bicentennial. As I was talking to representatives of the neighbor settlement board last week, one idea that they brought up was a little bit of maybe a lack of visual connectivity between the settlement and downtown, I don't want to put words in their mouth, But one thing that occurred to me is that maybe it would be a good addition to the Riverwalk's long term planning to address the one block between the Riverwalk and the entryway to Niagara Settlement. As I understand it, they are planning kind of a grand gateway at the intersection of Washington And Webster.

So just to put that out into the universe, that would be right on this side of the building. For those of you who know the Riverwalk, there's a brand guide that very specifically states what kind of bricks are to be used, what kind of benches are to be used, what kind of street lights are to be used, and maybe that would be a nice thing that could help connect that part of the Naperville experience to the rest of downtown. Final thing I wanted to comment on is I saw a really interesting article today. So there's a suburb of Boston called Framingham, and there is a pilot program out there where you can now check into a flight at Logan International Airport in Framingham. So you can go to a suburban facility, there's TSA guards there, there's gate check facility, I'm sorry, bag check facilities.

Basically you clear TSA in Framingham, you get on a secure bus, and it has access into the airfield and delivers you gate side at Logan Airport. So this actually isn't that far fetched an idea. The same charter company that runs that service in Framingham also runs services outside of Chicago. So you can fly on American Airlines and actually get checked all the way through to South Bend or to Rockford on a bus, same charter company that's running with this pilot program in Massachusetts. It's a little different the way it's run out of Chicago.

Right now those charter buses go to airport facilities. But we are doing some discussion about potentially I-eighty 8 corridor study tonight. As I was reading this I thought wow wouldn't it be great if you could check your bags out of Naperville directly, maybe right at the Naperville Road exit on I-eighty 8. The big thing though is to get a pilot program like that I think it will take action from government. Know we're not going to just get a pilot program because they choose us. So I sent an email to you Naperville Development Partnership, sent an email to staff, hope it's something they'll look into, because I just think that would be the greatest thing if you could frankly check your your flight all the way through to Naperville. Thank you, mayor.

Thank you. Our next item is consent agenda. May have a motion to use the omnibus method to approve the consent agenda? Councilman Wayne.

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

Councilman Kelly. Second Kelly. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes nine zero. May I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

I move to approve the consent agenda.

Second Kelly. Missus Schotts, please read the consent agenda.

Approval of the April cash disbursements for a total of $45,554,928.77. Approval of the 05/05/2026 regular city council meeting minutes. Approval of the city council meeting scheduled for June, July, and August 2026. Receiving the year to date investment and cash balance report through 03/31/2026. Receiving the year to date budget report through 04/30/2026 accepting the public improvements the Naperville Polo Club phase one and authorizing the city clerk to reduce the corresponding public improvement surety Approval of the award of the cooperative procurement for bucket Truck Replacement Unit 516 to Altec Industries for an amount not to exceed $226,850.

Approval of the award of the bid for pipe fitting, plumbing, and mechanical services to Dame Mechanical Industries for an amount not to exceed $567,980 for one year term, approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for West Water Works and pass 15 e improvements to Dame Mechanical Industries for an additional ninety one days. Approval of the award of change order number two to the contract for office supplies, operating supplies, and small equipment to Amazon for an amount not to exceed $200,000. Approval of the award of change order number five to the contract for Harris radio system maintenance agreement to l three Harris Corporation for an amount not to exceed $53,526 plus any additional as needed cost as defined in section c and d of the addendum and for an additional one month term. Passing the ordinance approving an amendment to the city of Naperville 2025 annual budget in the amount of $3,074,800. Passing the ordinance approving variances for a private gym and lacrosse training facility for the property located at 655 North Washington Street.

Waiving the first reading and passing the ordinance amending section one dash eight b dash four of the Naperville Municipal Code regarding ambulance and emergency response services billing. And waiving the first reading and passing the ordinance to establish two way stop control at the intersection of Bigfoot Lane, Bel Air Court and Zanger Avenue.

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

Yes. Gibson. Aye. Holzaur. Aye. Kelly. Aye. McBroom. Aye. Syed? Aye. White? Aye. Wilson?

Aye. Motion passes eight zero. And I wanna back up for the clerk and remind her that I made a mistake when I was announcing the the vote totals. We have one council person who's not here, so it's eight zero on the other ones. Thank you. Item j one.

Item j one is recommendation to concur with the petitioner, open the public hearing for the Bauer Road duplexes, and continue the case to the 06/16/2026 city council meeting.

Public hearing for the Bauer Road duplexes is now open. Anyone who wishes to speak may come forward. Seeing nobody, the public hearing will be continued until the 06/16/2026 city council meeting. M one

item m one is recommendation to approve the award of the bid for North Central College Riverwalk Park 430 South Washington Street to Baumgartner Construction for an amount not to exceed $2,049,192.32 plus a 3% contingency. There is one speaker, Marilyn Schweitzer.

And before the speaker begins, I will be recusing due to a perceived conflict of interest on this item. Thank you. And Mayor Pro Tem McBroom will be proceeding with the meeting.

Okay. Good evening. So I realize that the city, Park District, and North Central College will all benefit from this project. The property has been an eyesore for more than two decades, half of that time while being owned by the college. However, given that the college has spent less than half 1,000,000 on the property, while the city is spending more than 2,000,000 to construct the park along with roughly 20 ks annually for maintenance, I question whether this arrangement represents the most balanced use of taxpayer resources. I hope future projects are approached with care, consideration towards fiscal responsibility, and equitable partnerships. Thank you.

Councilwoman Gibson, I'll entertain a motion on m one.

Oh, actually I have some comments please.

Comments for discussion then.

Thank you. I'd just like to say your points are well taken, Marilyn. I asked quite a few questions pertaining to this item in the q and a. And it's my understanding that there were ordinances in 2016 and 2022 that commit us to the work in this park. I do think the park is a huge improvement over what is there now and what many of us remember has been there in the past.

And I'm really grateful. I think it looked beautiful and also for the accessibility of this new park. But I did have some of the same concerns you had, Marilyn. So I did clarify and in the q and a, and actually if staff could just verify that North Central will be covering the cost of their sign and the historical elements whereas we're covering the cost of the park.

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

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

Seeing no further discussion, now we'll take it entertain a motion for m one.

I move to approve the award of bid 26015 North Central College Riverwalk Park 430 South Washington Street to Baumgartner Construction Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $2,049,192.32 plus a 3% contingency.

Second, Kelly.

Roll call.

Gibson? Aye. Holzaur? Aye. Kelly? Aye. McBroom? Aye. Syed? Aye. White?

Aye. Wilson? Aye.

Motion carries seven zero.

Item m

two. Item m two is a recommendation to approve the award of the bid for the 2026 lead water service replacement program to Tryon Construction Corporation for in Mount Natt to exceed $3,393,800 plus a 3% contingency.

Councilman White. I moved it.

I moved to approve the board of bid twenty five Dash2532026 lead water service replacement program to try and construction corporation for an amount not to exceed $3,393,608,100 dollars plus a 3% contingency.

Council Member Kelly. Second Kelly. We have a motion and a second on m two. Roll call. Holzhauer. Aye. Kelly. Aye. McBroom. Aye. Syed?

Aye. White?

Aye.

Wilson?

Aye. Worley?

Yes. Gibson? Aye.

Motion passes eight zero. Next item.

Item o one is recommendation to authorize the city manager to increase the twenty twenty six personnel headcount and hire two full time medical billing representatives in the fire department.

Councilman White.

I moved to authorize the city manager to increase the 2,026 personnel headcount and hire two full time medical billing representatives in the fire department.

Second, Kelly. We have a motion and a second on o one. Discussion, councilman McBroom.

Thank you, mayor. I was just hoping chief could give us a quick summary here and your thoughts on it.

Chief Bucknidus?

Mark Pukhnyde as fire chief. Be happy to answer those questions and anything else that you may have regarding this. This is a really great opportunity for us in the city of Naperville, especially in the fire department, to be a unique situation in handling our own billing for emergency medical services that we have. First thing I want to point out, and I want everybody that is listening to understand, is that there is no person that lives in Naperville that is going to have to pay any out of pocket costs for emergency medical services billing now, nor has there been in the past. So what this allows us to do, first of all, it eliminates any of the commissions that we used to pay to a third party, which equate to over $300,000 usually on average.

And it also allows us to have more control so we can have more quality in turning over those bills to the billing companies. I'm sorry, not to the billing companies, but to Medicare, Medicaid, and also the other payer mixes that we have, the insurance companies and things like that. It's a very timely process. And we feel that we have the expertise to do that internally. And we're hiring the two billers, along with our medical billing specialists that we already have on board, to make that happen.

It's a very unique opportunity. I think there's only one or two other fire departments in the state that are doing that. None of those fire departments are even close to the size of Naperville and the volume that we have. So from a service perspective, from a quality control is an enhancement. But also from a cost perspective is going to save us a tremendous amount of money going forward.

Thanks, chief. Any other discussion? All right, we have a motion and a second on one. Roll call. Kelly. Aye. McBroom.

Aye. Syed. Aye. White.

Aye. Wilson. Aye.

Worley.

Yes.

Gibson. Aye. Holzhauer.

Aye. Motion passes eight zero. Item o two.

Item o two is a recommendation to receive the special events and community arts grant fund presentation and reach consensus on modifications to the SECA policy and procedures manual prior to the presentation by the community services team. We have one written comment that was posted to the website and two speakers. The first speaker is Judith Brodhead followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening, mayor and council. It's nice to be here on behalf of CECA. And I only have a few things to say. And I hope you enjoy going through all the work that we have been doing over the past several months. We knew there were a number of issues having to do with CECA that should be addressed.

And we, as you have been, disappointed by some major events that were canceled when it was too late to allocate those funds to a different event or increase the amount we were able to give organizations if we had had those funds available. So something that we talked about and decided was that if you want to think about the one thing that pulls all the different kinds of Sika projects together, since they're so different anything from the last fling to a big parade to a mural, as you see on the side of the children's museum, to other art around town to a theater project of some kind, a musical presentation, an ethnic celebration. What brings all of those things together? And the language that we came up with is that and you'll probably see this in our upcoming refined mission statement in some way, is whether a project creates meaningful shared experiences and cultivates a sense of belonging within the Naperville community. So that's what we're looking for in addition to, you know, all of the hoops that we want people to jump through and all of the standards that we want them to follow, that this is this is the point of CECA.

And you have a lot to look at. And we look forward to your response to it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker?

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening. Page four zero one of the 2026 city budget shows two CECA entries, the grant program and city obligations. City obligations receives slightly more funding than grants. Combined, CECA receives 35% of the food and beverage tax. However, there is limited public facing information regarding CECA obligations.

The special events and community arts program web page does not even reference them. And understanding this portion of the program requires reviewing prior city council meetings on Legistar. My understanding was that the city council request to review CECA policies and procedures would include both grants and obligations. It appears that the review has primarily focused only on grants. Given the size and scope of the overall program, meaning grants and obligations, I believe a comprehensive review of both components is important to ensure transparency and effective oversight.

Regarding the decision matrix on tonight's agenda, I offer the following comments. First, I support authorizing staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund Memorial Day Parade as a city obligation. Second, any change in program scope should include appropriate public notification, for example, through a manager's memorandum rather than simply a Friday confidential. Third, I support establishing a formal policy expectation that grant funded initiatives move forward self sustainably over time. I also believe city obligations should be subject to clear policy guidance to help avoid unsustainable expenditures.

I recommend pursuing both options for parade safety, implementing a standardized route, and exploring the purchase of anti vehicle barriers. I also suggest considering their uses at other large public events, such as Last Fling and Irish Fest. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. We have a presentation from our professional staff, Community Services Director Markotis. We're ready when you are.

Good evening, Mayor Worley and members of the City Council. I'm Melanie Mark Cortes, Director of Community Services, and I'm joined tonight by Jake Fielder, Special Events Coordinator. Tonight, we're presenting an overview of the Special Events and Community Arts program. Over the past twenty years, this program has become an established part of the city's support for special events and cultural programming. This discussion is intended to provide context in how the program has evolved, highlight what it currently supports, and outline potential refinements for council's consideration as we look ahead.

Good evening. I'm Jake Feather, special events coordinator at the city of Naperville. Before we get into policy details, I want to take a moment to zoom out because it's easy to get lost in the details and forget the broader impact of this program. Sika is the engine behind what makes Naperville special events feel like Naperville, The parades, the cultural festivals that bring thousands of people to Naperville, the public art people walk past on their lunch break. These are not random. They are investments, and Seek It is how we make that happen. Tonight, we're going to strengthen that engine. This is a policy briefing, a direction setting session for program year 2027. We're going to be efficient. We're going to be clear, and we're going to make sure you have everything you need to move forward with confidence.

To start us off on that path, I'll turn it back over to director Mark Cortes.

Before we dive in, I wanna ground us in why we're here. CECA continues to support Naperville's cultural landscape from the arts to special events to public art installations that contribute to the character of our community. That has not changed. What tonight reflects is an opportunity to further strengthen the clarity and consistency of how these funds are administered with the goal of making the program easier to navigate and more transparent for applicants, the commission, and for counsel.

Here is a roadmap for tonight, three sections. I want to walk through what we'll be asking of you in each one. Section one is background. This is context only. No decisions needed. We will walk through how Sika got here in twenty years of council directed evolution. Section two is administrative. These are operational refinements the commission has already worked through. We're presenting them as a package for your concurrence. Think of this section as housekeeping that's already been done. Section three is key topics. This is where we need your direction. Four specific topics, clear request, and we'll flag each one when we get there. Let's do a quick run through because this timeline tells you the context that how CECO works. It starts in 2004.

The council created and dedicated a cultural fund funded by the food and beverage tax. That's the moment CECA was born. And, critically, it moved forward cultural investment of the general fund and gave it its own lane. In 2010 to 2013, the Sika Fund was capped. The tax structure was refined, and public safety pensions began receiving a portion of food and beverage fund revenues. In 2016, operational clarity. The city obligations framework came in, which we'll talk more about tonight. This separated civic commitments from discretionary grants. In 2020 to 2022, seek expansion. Public arts was added to the mission, representing a program enhancement rather than an increase in funding.

Today and tonight, we're here. Policy alignment, refining eligibility, updating classification, and making the process more transparent. The common thread is this, every change along the way has been improved by council, often informed by recommendations from CECA commissioners. CECA has never been a passive program. It's grown through your choices and the choices of those who preceded you. Tonight is another moment in the ongoing stewardship.

Before

we any go any further, I want to make sure we're all anchored in the same fiscal reality because it shapes every decision we'll make here tonight. Total food and beverage tax revenue projected for 2026 is almost $7,000,000. Of that total, Sika allocation is capped at $2,510,000. This is a hard cap established by city code. As council recall, the cap remained 1,900,000 for many years before being increased to $2,510,000 for 2026.

That increase expanded the city's capacity to support community community events, arts, and cultural programming while still maintaining a defined and predictable funding structure. The food and beverage tax inappropriate funding source for CECA because it is directly tied to the economic activity generated by special events and community arts. At the same time, the CECA cap ensures responsive, measured, and investment of taxpayer dollars. That balance is important because the food and beverage fund supports more than CECA alone. In addition to funding community programming, it also plays an important role in supporting police and fire pensions, long term debt, and for settlement, and social service grants, which helps reduce pressure on the property tax levy.

Here's why that matters. We received over 80 funding applications this year. That's a lot of community energy and a lot of initiatives competing for a fixed pool of resources. When you hear a dollar amount tonight, whether it's a special event, a parade cost, or a category allocation, it all comes out of that same $2,510,000. The CECA fund is stable.

It's well managed, and it's governed by policy, not by the size of the request or volume of the ask. Now let's talk about how funding decisions are actually get made because this is the core of the entire process. Three pillars drive every single funding recommendation, Operational excellence, fiscal discipline, and community impact. These aren't new. They've been their framework for years.

When tonight's update what tonight's updates do is make them more visible and more consistently applied. Operational excellence is about an organization can do what they can deliver, event quality, experienced organizers, a mission that aligns with what Sika is here to do. Can you execute? Have you before? That we stay so that we stay grounded in our core purpose, it's important to revisit the CECA mission statement.

To assist the city in further special events and artistic cultural experiences that support an inclusive community that values diversity for Naperville and its visitors. Each Sika application is measured to the standard and ensure we're investing in experiences that reflect our city's values. Fiscal discipline is about financial health, strong management, diverse revenue sources, a plan for long term solvency, or stewards of stewards of public dollars. We need to know the investment is sound. And community impact is about Naperville.

Does this event serve the community? Who attends? Is there a real commitment to diversity and accessibility? These criteria apply to every applicant, everyone, regardless of how long they've been with us, how large the event is, or how well known it is in the community. Consistency is what makes this process fair.

I also want to mention that the commission explored implementing a formal scoring system. However, given the wide range of programs supported by CECA, it has been challenging to develop a method that is both fair and equitable. As a result, the commission agreed to continue to review applications based on overall strength of each proposal using these three pillars. What we are building instead is a criteria anchored judgment, clear standards consistently applied with documented reasoning. I believe that serves our community better. At this point, I'd like to transition to director Mark Kotis who will guide us through our administrative topics for tonight.

We'll now move into the administrative section. This portion of the presentation covers the Commission's internal policy and process work over the past several months. Some of these items are administrative in nature, important housekeeping updates intended to improve clarity, consistency, and program administration rather than introduce new policy direction. We're presenting these items as a package for council concurrence and do not anticipate each will require individual discussion, though we are happy to answer questions as needed. The Commission has identified four specific administrative updates, and I'd like to walk through each briefly.

First, an additional review meeting has been added after the November public applicant session. This gives the commission dedicated time to address follow-up questions before making allocation recommendations, improving the quality of our deliberations. Second, we have drafted clarifying language on religious and cultural event eligibility. I want to be transparent about what this language does and does not do. It protects culturally rich events, Diwali celebrations, cross kindle market, cultural dance performances from being disqualified by an overly broad exclusion.

It does not open the door to religious advocacy or worship based events. Eligibility is evaluated based on the intent, content, and presentation of the event. Third, federal five zero one(three) law already prohibits political campaign activity, and the commission confirmed that SECA policy will continue to align with these requirements, prohibiting applicants from participating in or supporting political campaigns on behalf of any candidate or political party. Fourth, a noncompliance consequence framework has been formalized. This is straightforward accountability.

Recipients who do not fulfill grant obligations have clear notice of consequences, which may include withholding of awarded grant funds, ineligibility for future CECA funding opportunities, and referral of unpaid balances to collections. Attendance requirements for the public comment meeting have been clarified, and applicants requesting more than $25,000 or new applicants are required to have a representative present. Does counsel have any questions on these four items before we proceed?

Seeing none, go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry, Councilman Syed. Go ahead.

Thank you, mayor. Thank you so much to the staff for the great presentation. And I want to give a shout out to the staff as well as to the commission for working so hard for all the applications. We get almost like around 100 applications and then this commission shortlist, eighty, eighty five applications and work on those things. And friends, it takes a lot of time.

Takes a lot of research work before approving or before presenting to the city council members. I just wanted to give a shout out and appreciate all the commissioners and the staff who has been working for all of us. And recently, I have attended some of the events and I have seen firsthand information how amazing these events are. I like on the weekend, I was there at a gentleman's bike rally. Around 100 bikes were there and I could see so many families coming together on that day early in the morning at 10:00, enjoying the bike.

Small kids with their families and also getting a lot of business to local downtown businesses. As a lot of people those who came for that, they were getting into coffee shops, having their breakfast, a lot of things were happening there. So thank you so much for doing that. I have also attended an Asian heritage month culture event, and I was amazed to see some 300, 400 people coming together again on a afternoon, on a Sunday. And I saw the diversity on the stage as well as in the crowd was amazing.

I always share my thoughts that, you know, when you buy a flower, red flower, yellow or any other color, it looks great. But when you have multiple color flowers that looks amazing, and that's what I have firsthand information I've seen on Sunday because of Sika commission and staff, what you people have been doing. So thank you so much to everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Ben.

Thank you. Councilman White.

Thank you. Can you kinda discuss a little bit how you got to the 2.51? I know we gave you we increased the cap here at the council, but just so the public understands. And that may be a question for Ray.

That might be a Ray question.

Director Munch? Ray Munch, Finance Director. So if you recall, during this last budget process, we evaluated some options around the future funding of NCTV seventeen. And one of those options was to increase annual funding allocation through the Sika city obligation. So the city obligation or the Sika cap was increased to accommodate that to the 2,510,000 that's referenced in the presentation.

Anya, I asked the questions. I'm curious. I noticed I did I just did the math. It's about 36% of the overall food and beverage. And I'm just wondering if is there a consideration of just keep making that cap somewhat associated with a certain percentage? Because as, you know, if the food and beverage for some reason goes down, I don't know if the 2.51 would be great, I mean, would work for us based off of those numbers or maybe it could go higher. But I don't know. It seems like that might be a consideration as as we go through and we plan while you're doing the budget. Any thoughts on that?

So the the funding level is is absolutely a a policy decision for the council. The the SECA cap includes an annual escalator of 2% or annual CPI increase, whichever is less. In terms of the balance between CECA funding and non CECA uses in the food and beverage funds, certainly we've reached a point where the other uses outweigh the amount that goes to CECA. Those are important uses. It's additional funding to police and fire pensions.

It's drawing down our debt service requirements, social service grants, things of that nature. If we found ourselves in a position where food and beverage tax was declining significantly, which outside of 2020, we've never experienced that, I think we would be in a position where we could reevaluate those uses in the various percentages. But based on the history, we don't see a scenario in which that is likely to play out.

Thanks for the analysis. Thank you.

Councilman McBroom. Thank you, Mayor. Going back to your your timeline, I was hoping to get kinda some more breadth of of history on the program to kinda help us guide guide us on how the program's evolved. Specifically, was curious, I don't think that the program started with city obligations being a part of the grants. I could be wrong on that. That's just been something that has been said and maybe it's assumed. But would you be able to pinpoint? Was there a time where the city only offered city services and not obligations? And did that change at some point?

Councilman to clarify are you you're referring to city services versus operational operational operational I'm sorry

that's remove obligations up I mean next questions about obligations so yeah Oh,

so you're asking between city services and operations?

And operations, yes.

That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. As far as I know, I think we've looked at city services and operations for quite a while now. I don't know that there's ever been a delineation between when that started. We can look at that and get back to you.

And then just my other comment on Marilyn's comments tonight about the city obligations. That wasn't what we directed staff to do. I I felt like that I think you're right. There should be a a bigger conversation there. Just from a point of transparency, you know, I'm just searching around on the city website.

You know, if if if a resident were to say, well, over half of that food and beverage or half of that allocation goes to obligations. It's not really easy to find out. You know, I'm sure director Munch could rattle off what those obligations are for. I we added quite a bit more for NCTV this past year, I know. But I would ask that that those allocation it's pretty easy to find the who was allocated for the grant applications, but it's not it's almost like a separate website. So but, anyway, I do think we should have that discussion at at some point, but that isn't the direction that we we gave staff. I think we're exclusively talking about the grant process.

Mister Krieger, you had some information?

Sure. Just as a little bit of history, when the SICA fund was created, or the food and beverage tax fund was created and the SICA program was initiated, it was a split of both city services as well as some operational. Probably the clearest example on the city services side would have been for city staff for Ripfest. And on the operational side, it would be the dollars that went to the municipal band, just for examples.

Director, can you go back to slide eight for me? It was it was slide eight. So under the noncompliance policy, or in general, I'm just going to ask with regard to operational expenses where the city seeker grants would be to reimburse people for operational expenses or organizations for operational expenses, not for city services. If an organization, for whatever reason, goes sideways, chooses not to pay a vendor, or the organization implodes. I mean, the city have any liability?

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

I don't think so. It's a reimbursement program. So we wouldn't reimburse. We can see receipts before we reimburse the money to an event. So I don't see any liability there. All

right, seeing no other questions.

Okay. We now turn to the key topic section, the four items where we are specifically seeking counsel's direction tonight. I want to reframe this section briefly. These are not problems with CECA. They are places where the program has reached a natural decision point and where counsel's guidance will help us move forward with clarity and confidence.

The four topics are the future funding structure for Memorial Day Parade, the change of scope review process, formalizing a path to organizational self sufficiency, and standardizing parade operations. This matrix is intended to serve as a roadmap for tonight's discussion, illustrating the transition from the current state of CECA to a future state. It outlines the items before council and highlights the key decision points where we are seeking direction. The Memorial Day Parade is a longstanding civic event that provides community benefit by honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country and fostering a shared sense of community and remembrance. In 2024 and 2025, total city services costs for the event exceeded the annual CECA allocation.

In both years, the remaining balance was covered using unspent CECA funds available. The current 2026 estimate is $40,280 with an anticipated funding gap of approximately $4,028 Prior to 2024, Sika allocations consistently covered the full cost of city services for this event. The funding gap has expanded 37% since 2024. The increase in cost is largely driven by enhanced security measures, holiday overtime pay requirements for staff, and the need to outsource certain police services. It should also be noted that the Memorial Day parade does not generate revenue to offset their costs.

Given the civic nature of this event and its consistent reliance on city services, the commission recommends that the Memorial Day parade be considered a city obligation rather than discretionary. If directed to do so, staff would return with the specific budget proposal for formal council action. The question here is whether to authorize staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund the Memorial Day parade as a city obligation. And we'll pause here and get your feedback.

So So council members, the commission is seeking council direction on whether to authorize staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund the Memorial Day parade as a clear city obligation, which would waive any sort of future application. It would just always be there. So we'd be looking for, we've got some discussion, Councilman Alzar.

Thank you, Mayor. As I mentioned in a prior meeting, think this is a great idea. It's a cornerstone event in Naperville. A thought is perhaps in the future we might want to define a few other cornerstone events. It's hard to imagine in Naperville where we don't have a Labor Day parade. Hard to imagine in Naperville where we don't have a St. Patrick's Day parade. Hopefully hard to imagine April in the future where we don't have an India Day parade. So I don't know if that's five or something like that but just something to think about not tonight but possibly for the future. Thank you mayor.

Councilman McBroom. Thank you mayor. Can we get a yes or no on this without making a financial commitment? How does that work?

Mister Krueger? Yeah. This really just directs staff to go back, examine it, and bring something back to city council. So there would be there will be no fine there will be no financial obligations that anyone's locked into based on your actions tonight.

Okay.

Seeing no other questions, is there a show of hands in support of the question? And I'll repeat it again. The Sikh Commission seeking council direction on whether to authorize staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund the Memorial Day parade as a city obligation. And this my hands in the ear would say yes, and then I will call for the noes in a moment. So those in favor, signify by raising your hand in the air. I see nine hands in the air. Those against? I think we know the answer. We have nine hands in the air on item number one.

Okay, thank you. This next item clarifies what constitutes a change of scope under CECA and how these situations are handled. At a high level, a change of scope is a substantive change to the purpose, nature, scale, or primary components of a funded project compared to what was originally approved. Routine administrative adjustments such as changes in date, venue within Naperville, or minor programming updates are not considered changes of scope. For instance, an event that changes from an outdoor festival to a ticketed indoor concert is a scope change.

A venue switch within Naperville is not. The intent here is to ensure that funded projects remain consistent with what council approved while still allowing reasonable flexibility in implementation. Any proposed changes would first be vetted by the special events team. If a change of scope is identified, council would be notified via manager's memo or Friday confidential along with any recommended next steps. And at this point, again, we are seeking your concurrence with this approach.

Any discussion? Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, mayor. From my understanding of this one, this is just a notification to us. But if we're notified, do we have a mechanism to rectify? I mean, would that have to come to a council agenda and go vote?

It would depend on the situation. If there's any funding involved, that would definitely have to come to vote. Most items, I can't imagine that we've ever had a change in funding. But most of it would just be in notification.

Go ahead, Councilwoman.

Thanks. So as a follow-up, because in my mind, one of the big issues this is not necessarily additional funding. But if an event is shrinking in size, say a three day event down

to a

two day event, where we would be wanting to decrease the funding. So would that just that we're notified and then we just reach out to staff and ask about next steps?

Go ahead.

Yeah, we would notify counsel and then we would get any feedback that you would provide. Okay, it's

not worth formalizing something more standard?

Mister Krieger?

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

Okay. Thank you. Councilman White.

Thank you. Yep. And I have a similar question. As I'm looking at it, if a change of scope could potentially be more of an intent or of what you're trying to do with the event, or it could just just be several different things it could potentially be to the point where I'm almost suggesting should it go back through Sika to be reassessed. Because if if it the scope changes enough, you may not have approved it at the same level you did before, and now there's funding out there that we have to consider that could be reimbursed or come back to the the fund and it could have been used for other users.

Yeah. Change of scope requests go to go to CECA for review.

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

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

Yeah. I I think that's a concern for me. I think, you know, it based on the situation, we should be able to reassess what was granted to a particular organization and and make a decision based off of that. I don't think that that funding should be there just because it's already been approved because it was approved based on certain circumstances. And now the circumstances have changed, I think it should be reassessed. And I wouldn't recommend giving more, but definitely if it means that it should be less, then we should be able to have that option to consider that.

Yeah. I'd agree with my colleague. I I think a a scope change that has not been seen by the city council and approved by the city council theoretically is significant. And I think the CECA commission, while they are trusted to weigh in it and hear these things, in the end, the CECA Commission's recommendations ultimately come to the dais here for a global recommendation. And without that global recommendation, we could theoretically be approving something that we never got a chance to look at, depending on how much scope change and creep there is.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, mayor. Just for frame of reference, and you may not know, but can you guesstimate for us over the past few years how many of these changes scope do you tend to see in a year? Is there a handful every single years or one a year? Is there only one every few years? How common or rare are we looking at?

Say about three to four

per year. You have any examples for this current year or last year that would fit?

One example for 2026 was Park After Dark.

You give us a little more on What was the nature of the change?

Yeah, my apologies. The Park After Arc event went scaled down some days based on availability. So the application that was submitted went from, I I can't recall, yeah, three weekends to a smaller offering for this particular twenty sixth year. Same number of vendors, same number of hours, same artist, same group still during 2026, just push back the amount of events like offerings, number of days.

So my thought is I agree with what both of the last two comments were. If it's three or four year, then maybe we do need some policy on that. If it's one every three or four years or or what you just described, I don't I don't know that we really need that council agenda necessarily. So I I could maybe kind of go either way. It just depends on how often and to what degree you think we would be considering these.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor. I was just curious, how do we get notified of a scope of change?

We would notify you through a manager's memo or Friday confidential.

Or how is staff normally notified? Is it the organizations that disclose that there's been a change of scope or is it community members or how does that go about?

They reach out to me, special events coordinator for that message. Alright,

thank you.

Councilman Syed. Thank you, mayor. So I just wanted to, you know, listen from chair Judy Brown hood, if you can comment on this change of scope. I think you have been on the board for many years. If you can, yeah, please.

Chairwoman Broadhead.

Thank you because I was just passing Jake a note. Yeah, I would say that the change of scope for the park after dark is the largest one, largest change I've seen. Most of them are very minor. They change the date. They change, I don't know, something very small.

Can somebody think of change the venue? So I'd say that's the biggest one I can remember in the past five years is that compression of time. And there was quite a robust discussion about it in the CECA meeting because it did seem to be pretty significant. But on the whole, they're pretty minor. I don't really think you'd be all that interested in some of the changes.

But I think it's probably a good point that if it's a big change and certainly CECA or staff thinks that they really shouldn't need that larger amount of money because they're reducing the event, then certainly I think that's not a bad thing at all for counsel to look at.

Thank you. Chairwoman, just one more question. Do you believe that the Sika commission could further define what the change of scope could look like, like minor change, major change, similar to our zoning codes and things like that that

Absolutely.

Might meet the expectation of needing to go for some sort of counseling.

Yes. And I think probably a trigger for that would be length of event and especially event that was fairly well funded and expensive to start with. So yes, certainly could do that.

Thank you. Councilman White.

Chairwoman. Yes, Thank you. I would be curious. Is it possible maybe for us to expand maybe the noncompliance piece? Because I could see where these two could be connected. If the scope is so great, it may constitute something that most of us might think are noncompliance based off of what they originally submitted. Any thoughts on that?

Yeah, I mean, certainly. And as you see in the report and what you see in the screen that there is not really a mechanism right now for non compliance. So for instance, if somebody does something who has received a grant that is clearly against the rules in some way, we might hear complaints about it. And that would probably be discussed in a meeting and considered if that same organization applied again. But yeah, I don't see why not.

Is there anybody else who has any questions?

I don't

see any lights lit. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Alright. Seeing no other questions, does the council concur with the process? And first of all, based upon some of the comments that were made here, is there a receptiveness to the major versus the minor classifications of what these change of scopes could look like? Is counsel comfortable with that? I'm seeing some nodded heads.

All right. So are we comfortable with the process and then having the commission further define major and minor changes of scope and how the process would work. Those who would be in favor of that, signify by raising your hand. I see nine hands in the air. All right. Honor number three.

Formalizing a path to organizational self sufficiency, this is one of the key policy questions before counsel tonight. At its core, the question is this to what extent should CECA funded initiatives be expected to demonstrate progress toward long term financial sustainability, and how should that influence funding decisions over time? We are not recommending a formal sunset policy. That option was evaluated and rejected for its administrative complexity and potential to create inequities. And we are not proposing to phase out longstanding organizations simply because they have received funding over multiple years.

What we are proposing is that financial self sufficiency be given greater weight in the evaluation process for returning applicants, not as a strict endpoint, but as a demonstrated effort to diversify revenue, strengthen operations, and reduce long term reliance on CECA funding. Again, this is not necessarily a destination, but progress. CECA was designed as a seed fund. It is most powerful when it launches organizations and helps them grow into sustainable contributors to our community's cultural life. The application revisions we're proposing around supplemental funding and self sustainability plans are designed to make that expectation explicit and measurable.

This expectation applies to all returning applicants, large and small, and is intended to strengthen organizations, not penalize longevity. So the policy question for counsel is this should demonstrated progress toward long term financial sustainability carry greater formal weight in future CECA funding decisions? And I will pause here again for feedback.

Councilman McBroom. Thank you, mayor. Yeah. Point bullet three is what I'm most interested in. For me, personally, I've always thought of I believe the program started with that intention is to be seed money and to get a program off the ground.

And so I'm absolutely in favor of, I guess, some kind of broad policy emphasizing that. I think there's probably some different ways you can go to incentivize that or encourage it. Maybe a matching or a reduction in operations or I even think, think the secret commissioners have such a heavy lift when they're going through these applications. And part of it is I know you're trying to ask questions and encourage these organizations to become self sufficient. And that seems like a lot of work to monitor and track that.

And I know there's different county grant programs in different cities. And some government bodies who have grant programs like this will do a two year on or a three year on and one year off. I've talked to some of my colleagues. I don't know if I have a lot of buy in, but I feel like that would be one solution, one idea. But I'm very wary of a taxpayer funded grant program where we kind of just go into this kind of slippery slope of it's a permanent dependency.

And I don't want organizations to just kind of look at it as every year we're kind of planning for this. This is what we got last year. We'll probably get this next year. And it's just a part of their budgeting process as expectation. So I'm absolutely in favor of something there with three.

Councilman Holzar. Thank you, mayor. I look at this proposal as something really great intent. And to Councilmember Grooms points, I think the idea is not to create permanent dependency. When people have great new ideas, we want them to have the motivation to continue to engage the community, look for private sources of funding, all of that.

I am concerned about the wording here and this being a bit of a one size fits all approach. And for anyone who is familiar with the nonprofit world, most people have probably done something with a nonprofit here, so much of the energy and focus right now, you really want to become self sustaining, is going for these big national grants, right? Getting the $100,000 grant from somewhere. Brand writing has become a profession. And for some of the nonprofits in our community, I can see that.

The Children's Museum, the Settlement, some of these groups have the scale to be able to do it. But when I think about the Naperville JCs or the VFW, some of these groups, the value they're providing, and really my hope is that their focus is on helping people build community and people who may otherwise not have a positive place to be on a Tuesday night. And those people may not have the money to fund big events. And then I think there's also structural differences. Different groups have different profiles.

So let's go with veterans groups, right? American Legion, largely founded by World War II veterans. VFW, largely founded by Vietnam era veterans from a draft era. I think it's unrealistic to expect them to have larger funding sources as their population largely is just getting older. So I think to have a blanket city policy and say, hey, our expectation from the dais, from the city council level, is that you're moving towards a certain financial position is just a little too heavy handed for my comfort.

I do like the idea though of you really should try to get what you can given your abilities, and you should try your best. So I'm open to hear if other people have better ways of wording this, or just any ideas on the dais. I might, after hearing anyone else's comments, propose a modification to this idea that says something like we expect groups to make a legitimate effort to seek private funding to the best of their ability in addition to supplementing, you know, when they make an ask for government funds. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you. I agree with Councilman Holzhauer. Think he worded it. Was having a hard time articulating my thoughts on this, so I believe he worded it better than I am going to. But my initial reaction hearing this is that it's going to harm the smaller groups more. I know it was mentioned the fear of taking away funding from the larger groups. But our largest allocations now by a large margin go to well known events like JC's Last Fling and West Suburban Irish. I got some of those wrong. Don't get mad at me. But big ones that do have strong fundraising pools.

And I see Seeka as a way of making sure that we can have other groups that maybe don't have the profile in our community of some of these larger groups have a chance to share their culture or their arts with our community. And I worry that pushing them early on to self sustain could get less voices at the table. So I kind of bulk at this suggestion in general. Maybe something like a proportion of funding has to come from outside sources or a proportion that grows. But I'm not quite on board with this.

I'd be willing to see what CECA comes back in terms of a formal. I know this is a direction, not a final action. But I'd like to see something a little different.

Councilman White.

Yep. Thank you. Yeah. I I understand what councilman McBroom is saying because I do want I think it's important that organizations kinda have some skin in the game when when they're applying for these things. But I think it's important to also understand that we have organizations, maybe some of the smaller ones that Councilwoman Gibson just said, that are organizations where no one's being paid.

There's no salary. They're just volunteers, and they're willing to put their time and effort into putting on an event that benefits the community. And they're not and and if we start make we could potentially put a burden on them that now on top of all the things you're doing to that to volunteer to help out and put this event on, now we require you to go out and fundraise and do all of these other things. And if they don't meet that criteria, we end up losing the event. And I don't think that's good for the community as well.

It's a it's a it's a lose lose in that particular situation. So I don't think and I think you you we set it up here. It's we have to be careful having a one size fits all when it comes to this. So I I think the commission's probably gonna have to look at these organizations, these events independently to see what makes sense. That may mean we have winners and losers that. I don't know. But I would be curious to see what the commission comes up with. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor. Hearing some of the comments, I guess maybe I'm just dense or unfamiliar with some of the smaller organizations and fundraising. But like the JC's events tend to be bigger, so they'll obviously cost more. So you could certainly make an argument for a potential to raise a lot of money. But at the same time, realistically, JC's are smaller organization as well.

I mean, that being said, with smaller organizations or startups or whatever, for example, off the top of my head, the mural that I think cost $2,500 not a lot of money had they come to counsel or somebody to go, hey. I'm raising this amount of money as opposed to CECA. I would have been happy to and hopefully other people from council would have been happy to donate money toward that. Smaller events like that where where they're looking for private funding. So I I I don't know.

I I guess I kinda think the think about this conversely where if you're smaller and needing, you know, $2,500, $10,000, and you'd go to, I don't know, door to door or whatever asking for help for this event, it it certainly easier. But and then couple that with if you're going back to Sika every year asking for the same amount of money, hopefully you'd be able to even if you're put into the spotlight and able to get that amount of money in the first year, hopefully more people knowing about smaller organizations and small amounts of money would be able to raise that some portion or reduce the portion in the following years. So don't know. These are just some of my thoughts on it. But I'd certainly like to see if the Sika or other folks had opinions about perhaps reducing it on the third year, like Councilman MacGroom had mentioned, or reducing it by some portion in subsequent years.

Thank you.

Councilwoman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with us reemphasizing and trying to bring it back to supporting young organization, new events as seed funding. I worry that if we keep it too abstract and subjective, then it's gonna be hard for our commissioners to weigh it. And so I would like to see something a little bit more defined. And maybe it needs to be more nuanced in terms of like age of the event and past a certain number of years, then it's assessed or weighed differently in terms of self sustainability.

But I worry about us not having some rubric, some clarity in how we communicate what this measurement is gonna look like and how it's gonna be assessed so that organizations know coming in how this is gonna be assessed. Whether they've been with us, whether they're coming to us for the first time or if they've been coming to us for many years. I just think we need to be really clear on how this is being weighed.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, mayor. Good and interesting comments from everyone. I'm trying to kind of take everything I've heard and see where there's some consensus. I'm not sure where it is. I'm hearing concern about the smaller groups and concern about the larger groups.

I mean, not to talk too much just about the JCs, but I do have concern there. They're arguably the longest running event, might get the most amount of money. But if you cut down or cut out their grant, that really could put the last fling at risk. They are relatively small, smaller than they were. Mostly younger people don't know that they've got the ability to raise the kind of money they need to put on an event of that size.

But if you say, we'll keep giving you a large award every year for decades, I think it's hard to say to you, regardless of the size of other newer groups, well, we've been giving it to you for a few years. And so you've got to cut back. It's just really tricky, I think. I'm wondering if it could be just a more formal question. So it could be a data point for CECA commissioners to sort of subjectively factor into their decision making without, and maybe this goes against what's being recommended or asked for, but without giving formal counsel guidance to seek it to say you have to consider it for this number of years or x number of dollars or percentages.

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

So where my head is at is maybe you and maybe it's already there. Forgive me if it is. But maybe you formalize it as a question on the application so that you sort of force the applicants to think about it and provide that information. And hopefully you get them to think about going down that road and you give that information to seek commissioners to consider it in whatever manner they want to consider it without being quite so strict about it. So I don't know if there's support

for that or not, but I'm not sure I'm hearing support from five or more for any other kind of formal policy. Councilman Syed? Thank you, Mayor. And I wanted to have Commissioner Tom Meyer and Commissioner Zarr, so please come on the stage. Yeah.

I just wanted to hear from you as a commissioner what is your thought on this thing? Because you have seen this process, you have seen the applications, organizations and everybody. So if you can share your thoughts on this.

Arthur Zars here. The one thing, the point of order that in the application already is a question that says, do you intend to be off the CECA funding? Of course, you can imagine every single person says yes. So it really doesn't do much. I think the solution is more of a hybrid because we do have legacy events. And for better, for worse, they're dependent on the CECA funding. And you just can't pull the rug out. But I think that I would like to have the SECA commission have the opportunity to come back with some options. Because you could take because some of the arguments were here that we're going to lose big events like the last thing, we're going to lose their funding. Well, that could happen already with the SECA commission if we all say zero.

And then it would go to the council. I think that the solution would be having a smaller portion of the budget within CECA that's dedicated for the seed funding. Because I'd much rather see smaller events receive 100% of their funding, because $5,000 to a startup event can make or break everything. And they know that they have like maybe certain requirements. And the rest of the funding is just the legacy funding where we do the regular SECA discussions we have. But I think a hybrid where we take a smaller part of the budget, very small, maybe like $50,000 or so, that's allocated for us to determine for 100% funding for the smaller events, if that helps.

I can't add a whole lot more to what others said. But the one thing that I do when we look at these organizations is what are they doing to go out and get sponsorships? What are they doing to try to get self sustaining? Because a lot of them don't do that. And there's money out there.

As you know, I worked for a bank for years and they lined up looking for whether it was $50,000 or $500 And organizations do support that. So I think what we should be doing is encouraging these organizations to look at sponsorships and support. And in some cases, it may be selling a ticket and having some control over coming to the event and paying a fee. I know that that was the JC's for a while. And then that just became too complicated to administer.

But I think other funding sources, whether it's sponsorships, whether it's charging to come to the event, are all things that should be looked at. And I think we as commissioners have to be a little bit more diligent in asking a lot of those hard questions. Does that answer your question?

Thank you so much. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. So, Mayor, can I add something on this? So Go I have seen in last one year that organizations are over dependent on Sika.

And sometimes when they don't get the funding, immediately they react. And they put the responsibility on CD or Sika Commission that because of them, we are not able to host event, or we are not able to work on this thing. So maybe it should have some responsibility, know, on them also that they initiate something like commissioner Tom Meyer said, sponsorship, yes. And NIPR will definitely have a lot of local businesses who can support such non profit organizations who can sponsor, support, whatever way they can do it. But some responsibility on non profit organizations so that they also have some funding and then they get support from the city.

So that's what I feel. Thank you. Back

in 2004, I was sitting out in the audience when Councilwoman Ellingson sat up here and was advocating for what back then was the beginnings of C what was now known as the C Coordinates. I was a member of the NAPO Development Partnership. And we were looking at the implications of a food and beverage tax that had never been passed in our community before. But one of the compelling arguments that the councilwoman had was that we had events like Rib Fest and The Last Fling that I want to refer to as charitable reinvestment events. These were not for profits that were large scale events.

They raised a lot of money. And then they donated the proceeds back into the community to other charities. And those events are now few and far between. But Councilwoman Ellingson was really beyond her time with her thought process. She's like, hey, let's help these groups donate more.

And let's come up with a mechanism to pay for the police and the fire and the public works, and even the park district people who help support these large scale events. And then these groups can donate a lot of money back into our community and support all the different charities. Well, we're down to basically a couple left. And I think my guidance or advice to the CECA commission would be to look at events that could be classified in that charitable reinvestment space that are going to turn around with the proceeds that they receive, and then hopefully lever that into something bigger and give back to the community in other ways. I would also suggest that there be some weight on those groups that can come in with some of their own fundraising, or maybe even perhaps, say, wait for a match.

If I put in $5,000 maybe I could get a matching fund of $5,000 on the operational cost side. But it is a tough question. And I think there's a lot of ways to getting there. But I know we've got very smart members of the SECA commission that might be able to hear all of these different pieces of advice from the dais and maybe get us to a lot further down the road. Councilman Halzar.

Thank you, mayor. I really appreciated the mayor's comments there, about the charitable reinvestment. If you're thinking about some events through that lens, I think the standard that's on the screen is probably counterproductive to those. I also really liked Commissioner Myers comments that he asks organizations, hey, I see that you didn't ask anybody in the private sector for money. Why not?

Because I think it is a very fair ask if we're talking about taxpayer dollars. Mr. Zards I thought provided, Commissioner Zards provided some useful insight there that there is a question on the application right now. But the way I heard it, it's almost like a gotcha question. It's like, hey, do you plan to be totally self sufficient someday? I mean that's, there's no good way to answer that question. I mean that's just not realistic for most organizations. So it's almost like not even gathering data that would be extremely helpful. All of that to say, I didn't hear a majority of support for the highlighted option that's on

the

screen. I liked where Councilman Kelly was going with his compromise. So I wanted to float the language and maybe ask for hands in the air mayor if we could ask Sika to think about including something on their questionnaire on their rubric that they give to groups where they ask groups to describe the demonstrated effort that they've put forth to seek private donations to supplement Sika funds and let the groups go from there.

And that's the entirety of it, correct?

That would replace what's on the screen with, correct, just flagging the commissioners that we'd like for them to ask groups in their applications to show a demonstrated effort to seek private donations to supplement their CECA funds? I'm happy to test that question,

but think there's additional questions that we could also throw on top of it so you want to try it just just that one question to see if there's support for it

sure and then just and then just ask for hands in the air for multiple questions okay great thank you mayor

all right those in support of councilman Hallsour's suggestion, raise your hands in the ear. Okay. There's nine hands in support of that request. I'd like to offer the idea that the charitable reinvestment events should be identified and offered some more weight, or at least a different consideration than those events that don't turn around and reinvest into the community through charitable donations. I'd be looking for hands in the air of support of that.

So I think we got seven on that one. Anything else? Councilman Kelly, you got one? You want to throw one up? Okay. Is there anything else that we want to put out there for SICA to go back and work on? How about the hybrid model that Commissioner Zards mentioned with regard to a set aside for the first time seed money. Councilman Olszar.

Thank you, Mayor. I will say conceptually I really liked it. My hope would actually be if maybe they could come back with some more meat on that I guess. Maybe at a future presentation they come back to us. One of the concerns I can tell you I have is if there's a defined number, I worry about that starting to become, again, one size fits all or a little non flexible. If it's, hey, it's $50,000 of seed money or whatever, who knows what inflation does to that or changes in the nonprofit landscape so that would be my feedback would be rather than take a vote on it right now I'd like them to think about

it a

little more thank you mayor councilman Kelly thank you

mayor a follow-up question I'd have for that too if they're going to come back to us kind of similar to one of my earlier questions just some data on how many first time events would fit into that bucket in any given year on average And roughly how much funding is requested by those groups that would fit into that first timer kind of bucket? Just so we have a rough idea, you know, what are we looking at? Would 50,000 make sense or not? Just to give a little context to it.

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

The amount for CY 26 new initiatives was roughly $460,000 requested.

Okay. Director, you think you have enough guidance on number three? Yes. Thank you.

Okay, this slide addresses what may seem like an operational issue, but it has direct implications for public safety, city services costs, and how CECA funds are administered. Today, each parade in Naperville operates on a flexible, event specific route with city vehicles used to manage access points along the route. While that approach has worked, it also creates variability in planning, staffing, and cost from event to event. We are presenting four options for council's consideration tonight. You'll see the graphic reflects a 100% safety rating.

While no approach can fully eliminate risk, this is intended to illustrate the relative increase in safety these options are designed to achieve. Option one is to implement a standardized parade route, establishing a consistent route across all parades to improve safety planning, streamline traffic management, and create greater cost predictability. Option two is to purchase dedicated anti vehicle barriers to replace the use of city vehicles at access points. This would strengthen route protection while improving operational efficiency. Option three is to pursue both, combine a standardized route and dedicated barriers.

Together, these provide the most comprehensive approach to improving parade safety, operational consistency, and long term cost management. Option four is to maintain the current approach and continue using event specific routes with city vehicles. The reason this matters in the CECA context is that parade related city services costs are funded through the same limited resource pool that supports events and other initiatives. Greater consistency and predictability in parade operations improves our ability to manage those costs and steward funding more effectively. We are seeking counsel's direction on which approach staff should move forward with.

Counsel? Well, I'll weigh in just a little bit. Have you received any feedback from the Memorial Day Parade Committee on this proposal? And the reason I bring this up is that parade historically has been the shortened route due to the aging population of a lot of our veterans who can't walk. They want to proudly walk, and they should be proudly walking in the event that's there for them.

And it also historically lands at Central Park where Memorial Day services are held for an hour or more afterwards every year. So have they weighed in on this proposal at all?

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

Okay. And just a follow-up, has the downtown association weighed in on it as well with

Not yet. No.

Okay. Councilman White.

Thank you, Mayor. I like the idea of the standardized routes. I think that part of that, you should be able to maybe make it smaller but not increase it. So for example, if you want your parade route to be a little bit shorter, maybe based on some of the comments the mayor just made with with senior veterans, that might be something to consider as well. The other thing I would would add, and I I spoke to to chief on this, police chief.

I noticed along our routes, along Mill Street specifically, we've got barriers there. We've got the roads blocked. But I look at the the the house right next to the street, and all the if someone wanted to actually interfere, all I have to do is just drive through someone's yard and and and they could, you know, do some serious damage. So it's I'm quite getting in the weeds from a tactical standpoint, but it's something I think we ought to consider with those those homes where some of us as if we think, well, they're not gonna drive across the the yard because it's gonna break the law. Well, they're in there to to drive through the parade, so I don't think they're gonna really consider that.

So just just take a look at that and see if we can improve on on that piece as well. But I I like option three. Thank you.

Councilman Syrian. Thank you, mayor. So as an elected official, as a city, public safety is our top priority. And I can see the answer here. Option three. It is very very easy. And as councilman Benny White said, shorting the parade distance and all those things, I think that will really help. I have walked in multiple parades and I have seen it is very long parade, especially during the winter time. And I see if we can make it short and standard route dedicated barrier, I think that will really help us. Yeah, thank you. Osborne Colley.

Thank you, Mayor. A quick question for staff before talking about one of the four options for the anti vehicle barriers just process wise what is the decision you're looking for tonight what would the next step be if council's interested in generally going down that road is that part of the 2027 budget is that really part of cica or when when would that decision be made and how

yeah it would be part of the 2027 budget we'd to go through the procurement process

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

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

Okay. So for tonight, just want general direction on if we want you to consider that as part of the budget process essentially? Correct? Okay. So would certainly be in favor of that.

I'm thinking most people will be. But between the four options, I think I would lean towards, at least for right now, without having any input from any of the we've only got three downtown parades for '26, at least Saint Patrick's Labor and Memorial Day. If you haven't had conversations with any of those three event organizers, for right now I would lean towards just option option two I just I just don't know that we're ready for option three yet without those conversations I and like the mayor said I think there's a good reason or there's multiple reasons really why Memorial Day route is what it is And the St. Patrick's Day route and the Labor Day parade route are really identical. I think one ends maybe half a block further east on Porter than the other one just goes all the way to Central.

But they're essentially identical. So if we really have two longer parades and they're already the same, I just don't know that we need counsel guidance to say we must have a formal standardized route. Maybe you talk to those two organizers and see if we could match up that last half a block or if they have any plans in the future of deviating from the route they've used over the past few years. If they don't and they're happy with the current route, I would say leave those two alone and talk to Memorial Day organizers at a staff level before you have any guidance from council. So I'm at number two for right now. May as well. Councilmember McBride. Thank you, Mayor. So

is this topic, is this purely a security question or is it a logistic question or is there a financial question here or all the

above? Director?

All of the above. Okay. Yeah. It's mostly it's mostly safety but there would be some cost predictability in there as well.

Okay.

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

Yes, thank you. I'd say the vehicle borne attack is one of the highest concerns we have for any of our special events, including parades. These barriers would definitely be a great support system for safety going forward.

Okay, thank you. Would, you know, depend on cost. Would go with three. Look into that.

Councilman Wilson.

Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, guess my preference here, I guess, would be option one. And I guess my only apprehension with the barriers is, I mean, like Councilman White had mentioned, even if the I guess I'd have to see a full plan of like where the barriers would be just to, like Councilman White had said, if the barriers are at the street, then somebody drives through the yard, then it's, the barriers, I guess, still aren't gonna help that much. So I don't know. I guess I would still have to see what exactly the plan was and where exactly they would be at and how much it would it would cost to look into adding barriers all over our parade route.

Yeah, that being said, think it might make sense to look at a standardized parade route because like somebody else said, it could always be reduced. So that's where I'm at. Thank you.

Councilman Syed. Thank you, Mayor. So, Director, so what are the cost implications on all the four proposals? So can you give us some cost impact on this?

We did not do a full cost analysis on what the vehicle barriers would be. But I have seen one where it was approximately $300,000 But the challenge in that is the estimate that I saw doesn't necessarily equate to how many we would need. So it's a hard comparison to make. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right. I think there's some mixed feelings on the dais right now about where we're at. We can test the questions, or we can ask for staff maybe to address some of the questions that were brought up, like contacting the downtown groups and communicating with Memorial Day Parade Committee to see where they're at. I mean, could be no problem for them.

Or they could say absolutely not. I mean, until we know those answers, I just don't know if I'm stuck on number two until we know more of those answers. So council members, any thoughts? Do you want to test the questions? Or are we still kind of mixed right now on our feelings until we hear back from some of those other groups?

Councilwoman Gibson, you were giving me the peace sign or number I

don't know what.

Think I'm for option two. Think if our police department is telling us that anti vehicle barriers would make our events safer, especially and against one of the biggest threats we know to our special events. I think that's a worthwhile expenditure. I share the concerns about changing the parade route. I think right now it's pretty straightforward to go from April Central or April North to April Central. The groups already have the staging all worked out. I think Memorial Day Parade, keeping in mind the veterans and like that, but also the schools that have their marching bands. I wasn't in band. I don't know how much work it is to double the length of your parade. But I think that would be asking a lot of the kids who really enjoy those parades.

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

Councilman Kelly. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, and I think the real challenge is the staging. It would be hard to just make the Labor Day St. Patrick's Day shorter because where do you have all the cars and vans and everything staged for the start.

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

test that question, councilman? Sure. All right. Councilman White. Yeah.

Yes. So I think this question is worth asking, chief, as far as the standardized parade route. I would think that you would be able to plan a lot easier if it's the same route each time. But is that a significant muscle movement if we have multiple routes like we currently have or not? I'd like to get your opinion on that.

Deputy chief?

I do think there is benefits to having a standard parade route, like Ms. Morcotis had said as far as the standardized costs and knowing all that. I do think that we have the capability of working with Ms. Morcotis and possibly coming up with a long route and a short route that would cover the same footprint and accomplish all the goals that

you guys are looking for.

Thank you. Based on that, I'm fine with two, but I like to hear more from the organizers of the other parades to see what get their feedback as that was what suggested up here. So as a minimum option two, and based on that feedback, we can we can revisit and maybe go with option three. Thank you.

I I think that's kind of it's the 2.5 right now that councilman Kelly has got it, sounds like. Okay. Shall we test option 2.5? Hands in the ear in a support? I count seven, I think. Six? Seven. Seven. Seven. Okay.

Thank you. Pending counsel's direction on the items discussed tonight, staff will take three concrete next steps. First, the SECA policy and procedures manual will be updated to reflect the administrative clarifications approved this evening. Second, the SEC commission will refine its mission statement, which currently focuses on furthering special events and artistic and cultural experiences. The refined mission will establish a clear standard for evaluating projects, whether they create meaningful shared experiences and cultivate a sense of belonging with the Naperville community.

Third, staff will return to council with the completed manual and proposed mission statement for formal consideration and approval. And with that, thank you to the commission and to staff and to this council for your continued investment in Naperville Special Events and Community Arts. Do you have any other questions or comments?

No, Thank you. We're going to take a seven minute break. We'll be back at 09:25. It's 09:25. We're reconvening.

Mrs. Schotts, please read three.

Item three is a recommendation to receive the report and provide direction as to the special study to be initiated by the planning team in 2026. One written comment was posted to the website, and there is one speaker, Marilyn Schweitzer.

Okay. Good evening again. So from a planning perspective, it seems problematic if staff can only handle one special topic per year, especially when almost half of 2026 has already passed with no progress on the list of topics. This is not a new phenomena. For years, City Council and the community have wanted more than the planning team can accomplish.

On top of this, the city has invested in outside consultants, yet there is a recurring gap between recommendations and implementation. Special projects are sometimes deferred or dropped, only to be revisited years later when the original analysis is outdated, requiring the process to begin again. This constraint may contribute to longstanding challenges, including the city's limited progress on affordable housing over the past twenty years. As Mayor Worley noted a few weeks ago, there also may be implications for maintaining municipal control if such issues are not addressed locally. So beyond discussing and possibly selecting this year's one special topic, please considering the following questions.

One, is City Council content with the current situation? Two, is one special topic per year what most municipalities do? Three, do municipalities similar to Naperville's size allocate 90% of their planning staff time to processing development cases and 50% to all of the work? Is Naperville's planning team understaffed, or should priorities be realigned, for example, by hiring more staff, dedicating staff to special topics, or slowing down the processing of developmental cases? Could coordination between the planning team and other city departments be improved to lessen the burden on planning staff?

Is attrition an issue? If so, why? Can city council Can city council requests requests, be managed so that they do not derail progress on special projects identified during the budget process? Regarding selecting this year's one special topic based on what was agreed upon during the 2026 budget discussions, I favor the 5th Avenue development. I do not understand why the 2022 land use plan is considered insufficient for the I-eighty 8 corridor.

I also do not understand why the plan was largely ignored during the promotion of a data center on property that had been slated for future residential development. Residence input is not reflected and listed in the implementation. Council direction is also not included in the implementation efforts, which is equally concerning. Not proceeding with 5th Avenue would effectively waste cost, time, and effort spent last year by staff, council, stakeholders, and residents. The city would add yet another failed attempt on their 5th Avenue planning to its record. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. All right, on item three, I'll take a motion so we can at least get the discussion started. Councilman White. Or we can go right to discussion. Let's go to discussion.

Any discussion from the council? We have two options, either 5th Avenue priority or the IDA corridor priority. Councilman McMurray.

Thank you, mayor. I believe the staff when they say that they can't handle these. I mean, are major projects. So I'd love to do them both at once. But reading the text here, it almost looks like the citing factor for pursuing the corridor is uncertainty over the Build Act and impact on 5th Avenue would be greater.

I guess in a couple weeks, may know more on that. But a lot of talk about there is a need for housing. I mean, think all this talk about whether that legislation is right or not, obviously, I put myself on record. I don't think it's the right thing. But I do agree that there's a housing shortage is real.

And so I I assume that 5th Avenue would be a place where you know, what we approved down on 75th behind Home Depot. When I looked at that, I was like, that would that would be perfect for for Downtown Naperville for 5th Avenue. But I guess one thing I'm not seeing here is and I'm going to ask staff, you probably can't quantify this. And economic impact is important too. Expanding our commercial base.

I mean, does the staff have any idea from like a property tax revenue or ROI? I mean, should we assume that 88 by 88 corridor, what we do there is substantially better financially for the city? Is that something that we're considering here?

Mr. Krueger? Know, short answer is going to be it really depends. There are a lot of factors we consider when you consider kind of economic impact. Property tax is kind of one of those pieces.

You know, the others are kind of sales tax, job creation, and impact to school districts, a whole bunch of different factors. In general, for the last two decades, we've really been kind of focusing or attempting to focus the commercial on the IDA corridor just because that's that's kind of what, you know, kind of ramp ramp this community up fifty six years ago. The AECOM study did indicate that our zoning there is dated and we're seeing really that come into play based on the proposals we're receiving over the last couple of years. So you know that is what staff's recommendation is. It's something that you're not gonna see kind of tangible benefits in like a six month period.

But really for kind of the long run, that's where we think the money and and the employee hours are best invested.

Okay. Thanks. I'll listen to the discussion. Have an open mind here. I'm not married to one or the other. I feel like I'm a little biased 5th Avenue. I just I've always loved that plan. And I I I don't like that city property is not generating anything. And I think there's a need for, you know, housing for younger individuals and seniors there as well. Happy to hear other thoughts here and see which way we go on it.

Councilwoman Gibson.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm partial to the I-eighty 8 Corridor. We know how important revitalizing this corridor is for our community. Council has shown that we gave NDP 300,000 over the course of two years to specifically work on the I-eighty 8 Corridor and come to us with this strategy that we got about a year ago that is very extensive, very helpful. We saw in the Q and A they have been doing great work trying to attract businesses to the 88 Corridor, are working on branding.

There's an I-eighty eight corridor committee at NDP that meets weekly. So I think the missing leg of that, as we heard from city manager Krueger, is zoning. When we had the discussions about the data center earlier this year, the land use master plan was essential for how we approach that decision. So to hear that we have outdated zoning along I-eighty 8 while we have a group putting extensive effort into attracting businesses just seems like a misalignment. So I'd like to move forward with this special project so that way we can go through the public process, get community input, set zoning and a land use plan for that area.

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

Councilman Holzar. Thank you, Mary. Yeah, I think good comments in both directions there. While I am going to vote for the I-eighty 8 option tonight, I agree with virtually everything Councilman Groom said about the importance of 5th Avenue. I've said this many times before, but you ride the metro train out from Chicago.

Most of the downtowns you ride through have a really nice space by their train station. It's kind of embarrassing that we're the best community in America and we have parking lots from fifty years ago that everybody knows there's a better use. And it's political will up here, it's political courage that has stopped it from going further. So I really hope that that is something that can be a priority in the very near future. I'm going to agree a little bit with Marilyn's comments.

I really don't know that, hey, we're studying, we're having an outside person study rezoning the 88 Corridor. That means we can't do something with our train station area. I just don't know that I'd buy that as logical. I will still express just kind of a note of, I guess, skepticism on how so much money and effort was spent on attracting a data center here that was not in line with the city's own guidance. Spending money developing through a public private partnership a plan for the IDA Corridor before the city had laid out the guidelines of what we're now talking about.

I think that's a lot of money that is going out. A lot of money and effort that has gone out to what seems to me like cart before horse. I do plan to bring this up again during budget discussions. Last time I already mentioned taking a closer look at, for example, the funding at NDP that's going towards printed restaurant guides. This might be another area where we could be looking at some funding cuts and making sure our taxpayer dollars are being used wisely. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Jane.

Thank you, Mayor. I agree with everything Councilwoman Gibson mentioned. I think it's important that we align ourselves with initiatives already at play. I do think that housing will still be an issue with I-eighty 8 too. I mean, we're looking at potential businesses employment that might be coming our way. They'll need housing. Housing is still going to be a big part of that discussion. Don't think that it's just unique to 5th Avenue. And I hope we continue to have discussions around housing, particularly for our young professionals and seniors.

Councilman Syed. Thank you, mayor. Affordable housing, we have been discussing for more than five years. I have seen practically on this dais, people have been talking about this thing, but we have never moved forward. But this is a great opportunity. First, we need to think about the community, community's needs. Professionals, young professionals, today they cannot afford a house in Naperville. Lot of people I meet every week, out of 10, I ask everybody, where do you work? Naperville. Where do you live?

Aurora, Plainfield, Las Vegas, X Y Z Cities. Out of ten, six to seven people lives out of Naperville. When we can do wonders, we can do great things for Naperville community first. I feel, you know, 5th Avenue, we have been doing lip service for last five years, but practically we are not thinking and moving into that direction to help our own own people. I feel, you know, we need to think about our seniors who needs housing.

We need to think about our youth who really want to work and live in Naperville so that they can raise their family in Naperville. And we all talk great schools, great parks, great library of Naperville, but those people cannot use all these things because they don't live in Naperville. So I feel, you know, we should start thinking about 5th Avenue, such a wonderful place, station, everything we have there. But there should be the well where we should take some, you know, good decisions or courageous decisions to make this 5th Avenue happen. And I think that will really help the community as well as the seniors.

So thank you so much. Thank you. Well, I want to make

the case for the corridor. And I'll start with the changes that are happening in two weeks. In two weeks, June 1, the Illinois People Over Parking Act takes effect. The entire 5th Avenue study area sits inside the half mile metro hub buffer, which means the minimum parking requirements will no longer be enforceable on the development on that site. Trailer bill was filed in Springfield to exempt municipalities our size.

It is currently back in rules committee, and it will not become law before the effective date of June 1. So we need to plan as though no relief is coming. And you see that single change reshapes the foundation of ULI's technical assistance panel report that we received in December. The TAP's three formal recommendations were develop a master plan, run a transparent RFQ, RFP, and study the feasibility of a TIF district. But those were all framed against parking standards where code mandated replacement parking drove the density map.

And the reports rightsizing parking analysis, the TIF feasibility numbers, the development scenarios, the master plan would all need to be reexamined under this new law before we ask the development community to respond to any RFP. Not to mention the impacts on the neighborhoods and us potentially putting an RFP out that could dramatically change everything that the neighbors heard before. Meanwhile, in the IDA corridor, is real momentum that we can't afford to squander in. Perfect examples. Kihei Distributors, a $2,000,000,000 employee owned food distributor.

They recommitted in Naperville last year, renewing and expanding their corporate headquarters off of Deal Road. Salcarta opened a new precision medicine lab on CenterPoint. That's four times their previous footprint, doubling their Naperville workforce. AGI brought its North American headquarters here, anchoring a global ag tech operation inside the Schumann. And Via Photon, the Naperville based advanced manufacturer of next generation fiber connectivity, is exactly the kind of growth stage company we want building here.

Food, life science, ag tech, advanced manufacturing, these are the sectors that the AECOM study identified as our growth lanes and approves the corridor can compete if we choose to make it a priority. But the counter trend, it's real, and it's accelerating. Pulte built Napier Commons, two twenty seven homes on 67 acres of excess land carved off the Nokia campus. Former Lucent building next door was demolished in 2023. And the new plan there is that Pulte will once again be back with requests for more than two sixty townhomes and row houses.

Northwoods And Naperville is replacing the Illinois Hospital Association building on Warrenville Road with 64 townhomes. Each of these petitions, they arrive with a narrative. It's vacant office, post pandemic market, balance of supply and demand. But the cumulative effect is a quiet, parcel by parcel rewrite of what the corridor is for. And the AECOM study warned us very plainly, without a cohesive strategy, the market keeps delivering moderate density residential and single use commercial in a sea of parking.

So I think the question that we have to ask ourselves is, do we want a business corridor along I-eighty 8? Or are we comfortable becoming a community that relies on its residents to pay for services? Half of our jobs sit in that corridor. And if we can keep converting at one office park at a time, we lose the income tax share from those jobs that they generate for the city. We lose the sales tax activity that supports our restaurants and retail.

And we add demand in our schools and public services without the commercial base that has historically paid for them. And that's the balancing act that has supported twelve consecutive years of real estate tax rate reductions from the city. And it gets harder to hold these longer trends in the future. So my recommendation is to have staff proceed with the I-eighty 8 corridor study. Is there a motion? Councilman White.

May I move to make the motion to have the focus, for the planning team to be on the, I 88 Corridor?

Councilman Kelly. Second, Kelly. We've got a motion and a second. Roll call.

McBroom. Aye. Syed. No. White. Aye. Wilson.

Aye.

Orly?

Yes. Gibson? Aye. Holzaur? Aye. Jane? Aye. Kelly?

Aye.

Motion passes, eight one. Next item is o four.

Item o four is a recommendation to receive the staff report regarding the proposed Naperville due process and municipal property ordinance, consider the options set forth regarding local action on federal immigration enforcement activities, and provide direction to staff. Online, seven positions of support have been posted as well as 13 written comments. We have 13 speakers this evening. The first three speakers are Lily Bersiaga, Doreen Schweitzer, and Kaseem Rashid.

And just a reminder, all the public forum rules still apply for public speakers. And as you've heard your name called, please move to the front row so we can hear you in an efficient manner.

Good evening, mayor, city council members. I'm Lily Bersiaga. I'm an Naperville resident, a counselor, a professor, and president of Almas. Tonight, I'm speaking on my behalf. As both an educator and community leader, I want to re center the conversation around accurate information and clear distinctions because public discussion about legal and constitutional issues matter.

And our community, especially our young people and families, are listening closely to how these conversations are being framed. Thank you to city staff for the recently released report, acknowledging that this ordinance is legally defensible as an exercise of the city's authority and over municipal property and resources. The report also confirmed that the ordinance does not override federal law or interfere with lawful federal immigration enforcement activity. That distinction matters. Federal law remains a supreme law of the land.

This ordinance is not about overriding federal authority or preventing lawful federal enforcement. It is about how Naperville chooses to manage municipal property and resources locally. As an educator, one of my concerns throughout these discussions has been the confusion that inaccurate framing can create within the community. Public conversation should help residents better understand what this ordinance does and does not do. Distinctions between federal authority and local municipal property policy matter.

The question before this council is not primarily whether the city can legally adopt this ordinance. The question is whether Naperville believes clear, transparent, and consistent public policy guidance regarding municipal property and resources is important. The staff report discussed communication, training, implementation guidance, and continued community engagement. Many residents agree those efforts are important, but they should complement formal public policy, not replace it. Formal policy creates consistency, transparency, accountability, and continuity across departments and future administrations.

The ordinance can also serve as a foundation that supports broader communication, expectations, excuse me, broader communication, education, training, engagement efforts moving forward. This discussion is ultimately about lawful local governments, public trusts, and establishing clear public expectations regarding municipal resources. At a time when many residents are seeking clarity and consistency, I believe it is possible to support constitutional rights, respect federal and state law, maintain community trust, and establish clear local policy at the same time. I respectfully urge the council to move forward with option one, while also continuing the broader communication, education, implementation, advocacy, and community engagement efforts identified throughout the staff report and option three recommendations. Thank you.

The next speaker is Doreen Schweitzer, followed by Kassam Rashid.

Good evening. I believe that this ordinance is long overdue. Naperville needs to take action to support our immigrant neighbors, especially in light of some of the things that took place here last summer. I live next door to the Park District building in Downtown Naperville. And every day, I see Park District employees coming to work and making sure that our neighborhood parks, the Riverwalk, and all the Park District properties look great.

Many doing this work are Latino. Some are other minorities. And although they are all required to be of legal status, the ICE and DHS activities of last summer have shown us that legal status doesn't stop people from being detained. The very least we should be doing is making sure city employees are safe when they come to work on our city property. I was concerned last summer and asked if there had been if these issues of the threat of being detained had been addressed by their supervisors.

And I was told that it was not. And in that time of uncertainty and daily news, a violent confrontation based on basically individuals' ethnicity, it should have been addressed. We don't know what this summer will bring. And as a city, we must be prepared. And we must pass this ordinance.

Do we want to be a community that welcomes and invites visitors to our parks and our businesses? Do we want our businesses to be able to thrive knowing that customers and employees will feel safe coming to our town? How can businesses function if its employees are afraid to come to work or their customers are staying home in fear? This is an economic concern as well as an ethical concern. We should join many other Illinois communities such as Aurora, La Grange, Oak Park, Evanston, and Carpentersville who have passed similar measures.

We should make a collective statement with other communities based on our values and a belief in constitutional rights as well as moral right. When we said the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of a meeting tonight, it said, with liberty and justice for all. After all, one of the seven virtues is welcoming immigrants. We should build strength in our community, a community where we welcome and respect everyone. Thank you. Please vote to pass this ordinance.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Kasim Rashid, followed by Signe Gleeson and Giselle Rodriguez.

Good afternoon, mayor and city council. My name is Kasim Rashid. I'm a human rights lawyer who works right here in Naperville. And in addition to the comments made by my colleagues, I just want to talk about a few concerns that I've seen raised about this ordinance. One, I think the city staff has already addressed the supremacy clause issue. This is not a non issue here. This ordinance would not supersede the US Constitution by any stretch of the imagination. The fact remains the Supreme Court has already settled this in Prince versus United States in 1997 that we cannot have a federal government have local authorities enforce federal law. So this is not a supremacy clause issue. Moreover, what we're talking about is requiring a judicial warrant.

So this ordinance is actually calling on the upholding of the Fourth Amendment. The problem with ICE right now is we have ICE memos that are clear that they no longer require warrants to conduct searches and seizures, to go into people's homes. This should frighten anyone regardless of whether you're a staunch Republican or a staunch Democrat or anywhere in between. If we are violating the Fourth Amendment, we are undermining the basic due process of what makes this a functioning Democratic Republic. You study international human rights law, domestic human rights law, and you recognize that the failure of a government to protect due process is the first major sign that fascism has crept in.

And so it is critical that on a local level, we maintain and require there to be due process of law. And finally, there is historical precedent about this in combating the atrocities of apartheid South Africa. It was municipalities that led the charge nationwide to divest their investments from apartheid South Africa. They were called unconstitutional by federal legislators. In fact, the pressure became so powerful on the municipal level that it helped pass Congress and override a veto by President Reagan.

And now historically, look at those municipalities, nearly a thousand of them, who took the lead on this where the federal government was failing. And we recognized that they were on the right side of history. That is what we're calling for here. And finally, I'll make the economic argument as well. The latest economic study shows that as a result of ICE arbitrarily arresting people, there have been 5,000,000,000 fewer visits to retail stores. This is crushing our small businesses. It is destroying our economy. And now we have the benefit of hindsight. We know from DHS's own data that last summer in Chicago, ninety seven point four percent of the people that they arbitrarily arrested had no criminal record whatsoever. We have the data.

We have the constitution. We have the economic argument. All we need is your moral courage to vote, to pass this ordinance so people in Naperville know that this is a city that will uphold due process of law, uphold the constitution, and say no in the face of fascism, not because it's a Republican or Democratic priority, but because it is an American and constitutional priority. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker?

The next speaker is Signe Gleeson, followed by Giselle Rodriguez and Carrie Neiswander.

Good evening. As has just been said, my name is Signe Gleeson. I'm longtime resident

of Ma'am, you get closer to the microphone for us?

Sure. I'm a longtime resident of Naperville. I'm gratified that the council is taking on an in-depth examination of the Naperville due process and municipal property use ordinance. Thanks to all of you. I want to specifically recognize Congressman Holzhauer for ensuring through his motion in early April that the ordinance be studied and a report developed by the city staff for counsel consideration.

I also want to acknowledge city attorney Mike DeSantis, who listened to and engaged with residents who championed the ordinance. Tonight, I am urging the council to endorse option one proposed by the staff. Moving forward with and passing the ordinance gives legal heath to its intent and goal to safeguard city owned and controlled property from use by ICE. Further, the ordinance calls for documentation of any violation of the ordinance by ICE personnel. Such documentation will educate our community, which in turn can serve to promote community engagement.

Additionally, documentation of abuse and disregard of the law at the city, state, and federal level has been shown to be a valuable tool in judicial proceedings. I further endorse adoption of option three. It is compatible with adoption of the ordinance and will further identify Naperville as a leader in addressing the disregard of our constitutional rights in our state and our nation. I finally, I want to emphasize that this ordinance is nonpartisan. It should not be viewed from a partisan lens. Rather, it is about the dignity, safety, and security of all who live and work in Naperville. I ask who can oppose who will vote against that. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker. The next speaker

is Giselle Rodriguez followed by Carrie Niswander.

Good evening, mayor, members of the city council. My name is Giselle Rodriguez, I'm the executive director of Illini Workers in Action, also known as IWA. Illini Workers in Action served workers and immigrant families across Illinois, including residents here in Naperville. Through our work, we provide education, connect families to resources, support workers facing challenges in the workplace, and help community members navigate systems that can often feel difficult and overwhelming. I am here today in support of the proposed due process on municipal property ordinance.

I want to begin by acknowledging something important. This conversation is not about preventing lawful federal immigration enforcement, and it is not about placing the city in conflict with federal law. The recent release staff report self recognizes that this ordinance is legally defensible because it establishes how Naperville chooses to use its own municipal property and resources. At its core, this is about good governance. Policies matter because they create consistency, transparency, and accountability.

While some have suggested that these issues could simply be handled internally by departments or administrative practices, internal approaches can shift over time. Leadership changes, staff changes, and priorities change. Codified policy creates clarity that extends beyond any one administration or department. It gives residents, city staff, and future leaders a clear understanding of expectations and standards. It ensures that people are not left guessing how decisions will be made or how municipal resources will be used.

We often create ordinances not because we expect a problem every day, but because communities function better when guidance is clear before uncertainty arises. Clear standards help avoid confusion and inconsistencies later. Naperville would not be acting alone in adopting this approach. Other municipalities throughout Illinois have already adopted similar measures and have chosen to establish clear standards around the use of municipal resources and property. Naperville has the opportunity to join communities that have chosen clarity, transparency, and accountability.

Supporting this ordinance also does not close the door to future conversation. It does not prevent additional policies, training, or community protections from being considered later. In many ways, this can serve as a foundation, a first step that establishes direction while also allowing the city to continue strengthening its approach over time. At the end of the day, residents should be able to trust that policies are clear, applied consistently, and remain in place regardless of who is in leadership years from now. I encourage the council to support this ordinance and continue building a community grounded and transparency due process and clear public standards. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next speaker. Next speaker is Carrie Niswander, followed by Jane Bergerman and Julissa Sanchez Pena.

Good evening. My name is Carrie Niswander, and I am the senior minister at First Congregational Church of Naperville. I want to tell you about something that happened at our church just this past fall. For those of us who are people of faith, especially those of us in the Judeo Christian tradition, the call to care for immigrants is very explicit and unequivocal in our scriptures. We're called to welcome the stranger and to show love to all God's children.

And so at our church, we decided to hold an immigration event so that we could learn how to be better allies to our immigrant neighbors. The event was scheduled and the speakers arranged, and we were all set for the evening. In fact, a group of children ages eight to 12 were going to come and perform mariachi for the event at our church, FCC Naperville. But just hours before the event was scheduled to happen, our presenters and the children had to cancel their in person visit to our church. There was too much ice activity in the area, and they were afraid to show up in person at FCC Naperville.

These kids and their parents were so afraid that they couldn't come to a church in our community and perform mariachi. We still held the event and we had the presenters attend virtually. But the reality that a group of beautiful kids was so afraid made it all the more urgent in our church community. It also makes it all the more urgent that we pass the Naperville due process and municipal property ordinance. We don't want people to live in fear in our community.

We don't want children to live in fear in our community. This ordinance will make Naperville safer for all its citizens. And I believe that it is a moral imperative that we pass this. Our community needs you to take a stand right now and show courage on behalf of the immigrants in our city. We need hope. We need solidarity. We need our leaders to show that they care for the most vulnerable among us. It is my hope that you will pass this ordinance as we seek to make Naperville a safe place for all God's children. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Next speaker is Jane Bergerman followed by Luisa Sanchez Pena and Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening. Today I completed the detailed online city survey. It's really thorough. And I expect it's going to show that we have a great city, and we do. Many of the questions had to do with whether Naperville residents feel comfortable, safe, and respected here.

I myself feel comfortable, safe, and respected. But I know that I'm part of the majority of fortunate residents who have not been living in fear that I or a loved one could be handcuffed and hauled away at any moment while trying to provide a meager livelihood for myself and my family. I hope that hasn't happened to any of your loved ones. Every day, I see workers on construction sites, residential properties, our lawns, and city projects who most likely would never be able to live in comfortable, safe, respectful Naperville. They may feel unsafe while on the job due to ICE activities all around.

That may, unfortunately, be the way of the world right now. But our city can show that it regards all good people, even the most vulnerable, as valued. This ordinance is one strong way to prove that our city is brave and sincere enough to walk that talk. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Ulysses Sanchez Pena, followed by Marilyn Schweitzer.

Good evening. My name is Ulysses Sanchez Pena. I'm a Naperville resident and university student. Over the years, Naperville has become a much more diverse community, and today, many immigrant families call the city home. To me, this ordinance is about ensuring our city continues to value dignity, respect, and constitutional rights for all members of the community.

Many immigrant individuals and families already live with uncertainty and fear, and policies like this can help create more clarity and trust around how city property and resources are used. On behalf of the younger generation, we are paying attention to how local leaders talk about difficult community issues and how these conversations impact the people around us. Public discussions because like this they shape whether residents feel informed, respected, and included in their own community. Accurate information and clear communication are especially important right now. I also believe it is important that young people feel heard and included in local decision making.

Civic engagement becomes stronger when communities feel connected to the process instead of ignored or left out. Acknowledging community concerns is important, but it should also be followed by meaningful action and continued engagement. I understand that this ordinance is only one part of a broader effort that should also continue communication, education, transparency, and continued dialogue within the community. As a young person, I want to continue seeing thoughtful engagement, accurate public information, and opportunities for residents to remain informed and involved in local decision making. This ordinance is one step towards building more trust, transparency, and communication within the community and local government while remaining consistent with federal and state law.

I believe it is a thoughtful and responsible approach for our city. I respectfully ask the council to adopt the Naperville due process and municipal property ordinance and to continue demonstrating Naperville's commitment to constitutional rights, community trust, and responsible leadership. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Marilyn Schweitzer, followed by Elizabeth Schluter and Tim Caine.

Okay. I offer a poem by Rudy Francisco. She asks me to kill the spider. Instead, I get the most peaceful weapons I can find. I take a cup and a napkin.

I catch the spider and put it outside and allow it to walk away. If I am ever caught in the wrong place at the wrong time just being alive and not bothering anyone, I hope I am greeted with the same kind of mercy. This is relevant because when we have the power to protect people who live in fear through no fault of their own, we should choose compassion and take action. The core values of the city of Naperville are people, trust, respect, and pride. Fear undermines every one of those values.

It erodes trust in institutions, damages community relationships, and weakens the sense of belonging that makes Naperville strong. The stories we've heard and read about here regarding intimidation, discriminatory profiling, and the lack of due process are real. Their impact is painful and lasting for members of this community. We need to take whatever legal action we can to counter the harm that has been done and continues to occur. As you consider the options regarding the proposed due process municipal ordinance, I urge you to proceed with options one, two, and three as they are not mutually exclusive.

An ordinance provides clarity, accountability, and consistent reporting. A resolution publicly affirms the city's values and intent. And pursuing legislative initiatives recognizes that this is not merely a local issue. It is a national one that reflects on who we are as Americans. I'm frightened that measures like these are even necessary at all. But given the current reality, we need to choose clarity, accountability, and compassion. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker?

The next speaker is Elizabeth Schluter, followed by Tim Cain and Elizabeth Navarro. Good evening. My name

is Elizabeth Schluter. Thank you to the city staff and Mr. DeSanto for your work on the Naperville due process and municipal property use ordinance. This ordinance is not about Naperville interfering with immigration enforcement nor is it a symbolic or political ordinance. The ordinance is narrow, lawful, and focused on municipal property and resources.

Since April, eighteen more people have died in ICE custody due to neglect or homicide. There has been a 70% increase in unjustifiable detention. Of the 12,000 habeas corpus cases filed, the judges have ruled more than 10,000 times against ICE. Close to 90% of detentions were unlawful. Human beings have been denied food, water, and medical care, all for extraordinary profits to the private prison industry.

Men, women, and children are being sexually abused in detention. People are being beaten, kidnapped, and murdered on the street. ICE will keep committing atrocities as long as they can get away with it. We alone can't stop them, but we certainly don't have to help them. ICE wastes taxpayer money.

ICE presence costs cities millions of dollars. ICE burns police time. ICE is a multibillion dollar funded operation of masked agents who until recently have acted with impunity to abuse residents of cities, exploit, destabilize communities. Local governments cannot be compelled to use local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement activities. There is no conflict with the supremacy clause, and the ordinance operates with an established constitutional precedent and the city's lawful home rule authority.

It complies with federal and state law through explicit judicial warrants and court orders. Neighboring municipalities like Aurora, Batavia, Downers Grove, and others have adopted similar legally enforceable ordinances. This pushback has helped curb ICE's abuses. Naperville must set clear boundaries and limits on what we will allow. We are known for our safety.

Refusing to aid ICE abuse makes us safer. Please don't think that ICE abuses are not happening here. We cannot be silent witnesses to atrocities and still expect to be considered one of the best places to live in the country. Please vote unanimously to codify Naperville's actions, exercise our legal rights The speaker is and protect our residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker?

The next speaker is Tim Keene, followed by Elizabeth Navarro and Christian Lewis.

Good evening, Mayor Worley and members of the council. My name is Tim Cain. I'm here tonight in support of the Naperville due process and municipal property ordinance. I don't live in Naperville, but I spend a lot of time here. I volunteer here.

I seem to find myself at both Costcos on a weekly basis. My barber is an immigrant who has built a loyal business here. And many of the restaurants I regularly go to are immigrant owned, funding those food and beverage coffers we discussed tonight. I truly think every time I step foot in Naperville, I engage with immigrants who have invested in this community, created jobs, and are part of why I care about Naperville. On President's Day in February, I was at the Washington Street Bridge with Naperville students who took to the streets downtown to exercise their freedom of speech and protest ICE activity in their community.

I saw their motivation and heard their voices. Naperville is a leader in the Chicago Suburbs, its schools, its economy, and its reputation. Villa Park, Downers Grove, Aurora, and all the cities been mentioned here tonight have already adopted ordinances like this one. People pay attention to what this city does, and that's exactly why this moment calls for clarity and leadership from this council. We all know what happened during Operation Midway Blitz, and it continues to this day just a little more quietly.

We know this isn't a solution to our problems. We can see the problems it creates in the headlines and in our streets, tear gas in the suburbs, US citizens detained, restaurants losing business, civil rights lawsuits. And these costs don't just stay with the federal government. They land on communities like this one. On a personal level, growing up, learning the story of the Good Samaritan, I know being a good person is never about papers or status or place of origin.

It's about actions. And that's still how I think about it. This ordinance is about protecting residents, protecting trust, and being responsible with this city's resources and reputation. I urge you to demonstrate your commitment to the responsible use of community resources and a commitment to the rights and safety of this community. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Elizabeth Navarro, followed by Christian Lewis.

Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Elizabeth Navarro, and I am speaking tonight on behalf of ALMAS, which is the Alliance of Latinos Motivating Action in the Suburbs. ALMAS supports moving forward with option one while also continuing the broader communication, education, implementation, and engagement efforts discussed throughout the staff report and included within the option three recommendations. We view this ordinance as one important step that can be taken locally as part of a broader approach. Over the past week and a half, our organization and local community responders have seen increased concern, fear, and uncertainty within immigrant communities across the suburbs related to immigration enforcement activity.

These conversations have reinforced the importance of clear communication, transparency, and accessible public information regarding local policy and municipal resources. We appreciate that the staff report identified additional opportunities related to communication, training, implementation guidance, and ongoing community engagement. We believe these efforts are important and should complement a formal ordinance rather than replace it. Communication, training, implementation guidance, and community engagement are strongest when supported by clear and consistent public policy. Formal policy creates a framework for implementation while supporting long term consistency.