Transportation Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

We'll start with roll call. Branham? Janalski? Here. Gross? Here. Hansen? Hognes? Here. Llewellyn?

Here. Oh,

there's two of them here today.

Can hear Llewellyn?

Yeah. Nalwala? Yes. Raman, that's me. And Wanner? All right, and we have a student member today, Joshua Un. Welcome Joshua. So we'll start with the public forum. If there's any members in the public that wish to speak on matters that are not on the agenda today, please let us know. Those that wish to speak on a specific agenda item will be provided an opportunity at that time.

Members wishing to speak shall state their name and address for the record. And just a reminder, you're limited to three minutes for your presentation. Anybody planning on coming up? Alright, not seeing anyone. We'll go to reports and recommendations.

There are 10 items to be considered today. The first item is the approval of the meeting minutes. The meeting minutes have been amended to revise the date that was incorrect in the meeting minutes. Do the commissioners have any corrections or clarifications on the meeting minutes for 08/20/2025 as drafted? Okay, if not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. Okay, no opposition. And, oh, do me a favor. When you say yes or no, ANA, please state your name. So let's start over again. So who was first? Hansen. Hansen. Okay.

Second? Shabir. Okay. Shabir was second. Okay. Alright. Sounds good. Thank you. The next item is continuation of building review board case one eleven. Recommendations recommended recommend the adoption of 2023 national electrical code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments one through six. Staff presentation, please.

So we've we've already gone through these prior in the previous BRB meeting with the the first first issue is the national electric code. If there's any questions, feel free to ask. If not

Anybody have any questions from the review board? Any public testimony regarding this item? Hearing none, we'd like to receive a motion for approval. We'd like someone to make a motion, please.

Gross motions to approve. Answer the second.

Okay. Anybody's please vote yay and nay. Yeas. Any nays? Okay. No nays. The next item is recommend the adoption of 2024 international fuel gas code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments two through six or two of six. City presentation. Same as the National Electric Code.

We have no new new amendments to propose for this for this building code and recommend adoption.

Any questions from the BRB? Any public testimony on this item? Hearing none, I'd like to get a motion to recommend approval. I saw motion. K. Need a second?

Lewellen will second.

Lewellen second? K. Roll call. All of those say aye. Yay. Any nays? No nays? Okay. Moving right along here. Item number three, recommend the adoption of 2024 international mechanical code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments. Item three of six. Staff presentation.

Again, staff recommends approval.

Okay. Questions from the building review board? Any questions? No. Okay. No questions. Any public testimony on this item? Okay. Hearing none. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? We need a motion. Motion. Okay. We'll have someone motion, please.

I'll motion. Llewellyn on motion.

Llewellyn motion for approval. Second. Grohl second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any nays? No nays. Okay. Item number five. Recommend the adoption of the 2024 international swimming pool and spa code without new amendments and keep the existing amendments. Item four of six. Staff presentation. Again, we recommend approval. Okay. Questions from the building review board? No. Okay. Any public testimony on this item? Okay. No public testimony. I'd like to have someone motion to approve.

Yes. Move. Second.

Hansen first. Gross second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? No nays. Next item is the rec recommend the adoption of 2024 international property maintenance code with the proposed amendments to section three zero three point two, exception number two, and keep the existing amendments, item five of six. Staff presentation.

Again this is this is one we went over previously I feel is a very important amendment to add for for safety for in ground pools and we we recommend approval.

Any questions from the building review board? Any public testimony on this item? Hearing none, need a motion to recommend approval please. Lewellen, yes. Second? Second. Lewellen. Okay. Oh, Nullwala and Lewellen, sorry. All Need a motion to recommend. Okay. So all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? Okay.

No nays. Next item is recommend the adoption of twenty twenty four international plumbing code with proposed amendments to section four zero three seven seventeen point three seven seventeen point three point one seven seventeen point four and seven seventeen point eight and keep the existing amendments item six of six staff presentation

so we are proposing amendments to the IPC for the minimum plumbing facilities to eliminate confusion because we use the Illinois plumbing code so we're getting rid of that section in the IPC so there's no confusion and then there are quite a few changes text changes to pipe lining and that is to to assist our water department when it comes to lining of existing piping and staff does recommend approval

Any questions from the building review board?

Yes, I have a question. Mark, I went through that matrix that you had provided with all the code changes and stuff. And I didn't specifically see anything in regards to our the board's decision on the copper piping and whatnot. Just wanna make sure we're not superseding that vote from a few months ago.

No. No. This has nothing to do with that. That that BRB decision was was to challenge our existing amendments for water distribution or domestic supply piping. This has nothing to do with that. This is sewer and water services. We we do have a water department rep in here. Am I speaking correctly on that, Jeff? It does it include water services, or is

it just the sewers? Yes.

It I'm sorry. It is just for the sanitary sanitary sewers.

Yeah. That makes sense that you're you're just lining Yes. Not Yes. Supply line. Alright.

Thank you, Jeff. Thank you. Alright. Any questions from the building review board on that item? Okay. I'd like to have a motion for approval, please.

Grove, second.

Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any nays? Okay. No nays. Next item is item eight, provide feedback on the proposed amendment to twenty twenty four international fire code city staff presentation.

So this is one we brought up at the last meeting, but I just want to bring it up again because it's a it's a big change and I want to give the public time to digest and discuss. But basically, all new parking garages would require fire sprinklers according to this. So again, no action needs to be taken. I'm just looking for for feedback on this proposed amendment.

Okay. Any questions from the building review board on that?

I guess I have one question. Just to clarify, this is s two parking garages, so parking structures, not residential garages.

Exactly. Commercial. Yeah.

Does it matter if they're open or closed facilities? They would need to

be sprinkled no matter what.

No matter what. Okay. Any public testimony on this item? None? Okay. No motion is required at this time on this one. I'm just looking for general feedback. So the next item is provide feedback on the proposed amendment to the 2024 international existing building code. City presentation, please.

So this is language that lived in the IBC amendments, and it it got reworked and clarified a little bit, and then it got moved to the existing building code. I I dropped the ball on this one. I didn't realize it was getting moved to the existing building code because we we've gone over the existing building code before, and I proposed no new amendments. So I dropped the ball on this one. So that's why it's in front of you today just to give a chance for feedback. But it's just clarifying the existing language.

Any questions from the building review board? Hearing none, any public testimony on this item? Hearing none, no motion is required at this time. Just looking for feedback. The next item is to receive the Illinois stretch energy code presentation and public and accept public comments.

Please state your name, your address, and limit your comments to three minutes, please.

So he's on the agenda item.

Oh, that's true. We're gonna give him No limit for the time, right? Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes total.

Yeah, thank you for having me. My name is John Gossman. My address is not in Naperville. I'm not sure if it's applicable right now. I can give my work address if that would

That'd be fine.

20 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, 60606. So yeah, we'll be going over just some of the components of the Illinois stretch code today. I wanna thank Mark Dudash for the time today and the rest of the building review board for the extended time that you've given me to kind of go over these provisions. We'll go over who we are, my organization, and our partners on this. I'll go over some Illinois stretch energy code basics, benefits from improved energy codes, cost of building to the stretch code, energy codes and the effect on development, and then the resources that we provide.

So one of our partners on this is Slipstream. I am with the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. We are one of six regional efficiency organizations, also known as a REO across The United States. We cover 13 states in the Midwest. We are a membership nonprofit with 170 plus members touching on all sides of the energy efficiency industry.

So Mia and Slipstream, we have many years of support for cities and states advancing and adopting energy codes as well as on the training code officials for compliance. We provide one on one support for energy code and policy adoption and implementation to an array of Illinois municipalities. We offer building science expertise with extensive experience doing field research on energy use in buildings. And we engage extensive partnerships among the energy efficiency industry. A little bit about me.

I've been with Mia since 2023 working on building codes and policy. I conduct trainings on the Illinois stretch code to municipalities across the Chicagoland Region. I oversee general building science trainings across numerous Midwest states, manage field studies to assess energy code measures in new single family homes. And then I do have prior experience a little bit in the construction industry as well. So getting into the actual components of the stretch code.

So it uses a site energy index target, which is different than the base code. The stretch code targets increase in energy efficiency measures roughly every three years, much like the base code as well. And then once formally adopted by municipality, it establishes the minimum energy efficiency requirements for new construction additions and major renovations. And I will say you can choose to adopt either the residential or the commercial or both. And I'll also caveat that when and if you adopt it, you can roll it back.

You're not tied into this forever for the end of time. So for whatever reason you adopt and it's not working out the municipality can choose to roll it back to this to the base code here are some kind of timelines and site energy index targets so you'll see the current stretch code, the twenty twenty three residential stretch code has a site energy index of a point five zero. So the comparison point here is the 2,006 IECC. So currently, the point five site energy index means to be at least 50% more efficient than the 2,006 IECC. The next iteration of the stretch code coming out next year will be ready for adoption probably in the third quarter of next year.

That'll have a performance target of 60% more efficient than the two thousand and six IECC. And then that trend kind of continues all the way up to 2,032 where you have 75% more efficient than a 2,006 IECC. So it is a very it gives a good runway and predictability on where the energy codes are going over time. So some overall mandatory provisions of the stretch code, of the residential stretch code, electric readiness, EV readiness or EV charger installed, solar readiness, and then a demand response capable component as well. So with these mandatory measures, you hit all of these and then you choose a compliance path.

So the stretch code does introduce a new compliance path with the FIES or the passive house certification as meeting compliance. You can also meet it through the net zero appendix requirements. And then the bottom three on the right hand side here are kind of the more typical compliance pathways with the prescriptive, the performance, and then ERI pathway. Those have been amended slightly to meet those targets that I mentioned before. So here are some differences from the base code and this is comparing to the twenty twenty four IECC since that will soon be the statewide code in Illinois come December.

So the stretch code on the prescriptive side requires buildings to meet more energy efficiency credits. So you'll see 30 efficiency credits as opposed to the base model credits of 10, so 20 more efficiency credits on the prescriptive pathway. The simulated total building performance, the change here is that instead of an energy cost test, it now measures it through a site energy target. The ERI method, so the stretch code uses different scores for all electric versus mixed fuel homes. So you do have to have a more efficient ERI score if you are mixed fuel.

So there is some incentivization of going all electric though this is not an electrification code. And then these bottom two, the passive house and zero energy, it just shows that those are now a compliance pathway where before jurisdictions would have to adopt those as applicable compliance pathways. So this is moving to commercial. Same kind of set up here, so I won't go through it as in-depth here. But you can see still the site energy index targets and the kind of the predictable runway all all the way through 2032.

The mandatory provisions in the commercial stretch code are a renewable energy requirement, energy storage readiness, electric readiness, and then demand response requirements. So similarly, you meet those mandatory measures and then you choose your compliance pathway. Recognize these top ones I've mentioned before, the FIES and the net zero. And then the kind of the usual ones, the IECC prescriptive pathway or the performance, and then also ASHRAE 90.12022 has been amended slightly to meet the CG targets. Some how the commercial stretch code differs from the base code.

So again, the prescriptive or simulated performance tightens the performance targets for both of those. The ashtray compliance pathways swaps the, again, the cost metric for a site energy use intensity target. And then passive house and the commercial zero energy similarly, it allows that as a compliance pathway without jurisdictions having to separately adopt it. So the benefits of stretch codes and just enhanced energy codes in general. So it does create cost savings compared to the base code.

It's a policy mechanism to address building energy performance and any sort of climate goals that municipalities have. Improves indoor air quality from tighter building envelopes and better sealed ducts and improved ventilation. And it increases the ability to maintain safe indoor conditions during energy outages due to buildings designed with tighter building envelopes. So it does increase the resilience of all buildings. These next slides are just demonstrating that high energy efficiency and building to the stretch code does not not equate to higher cost all the time.

This is a builder here in the Chicagoland area. This is not a pitch for them, but they did give a presentation that we are part of that kind of demonstrated how they're able to build affordable housing while providing all of these above code measures. So they have solar, all electric, heat pump water heaters, tight building envelopes with ERVs, advanced framing for improved insulation, and r five windows for better insulation and soundproofing. So a lot of these measures actually go above what the stretch code is is wanting. So just demonstrating that this is now be this is being done in the Chicago land area, building to high efficiency standards while making the house still affordable and the construction costs affordable as well.

Just a picture here in this lower kind of right quadrant, these are the homes with the solar panels on top. So the changes in upfront cost to build the stretch code. So this analysis was done by PNNL, Pacific Northwest National Lab. They analyzed the prescriptive compliance pathway for residential homes which I will caveat in saying that most builders that I'm familiar with use performance pathways now to kind of lower the cost of building. So them comparing them doing this analysis on prescriptive, there could be even a lesser cost to build depending on which compliance pathway you're choosing.

So the stretch code, as mentioned, does allow compliance by providing separate compliance pathways. The readiness measures are the only definite new added costs. And the benefits of the stretch code are more than the one time cost. So this asterisk here is showing that this is an analysis from the 2021 IEC to the stretch code. There is a request for an updated analysis from the new stretch code to the new base code.

But these are the numbers, the more most recent numbers that we have access to. So for single family homes, the increased cost is about $7,300 with the efficiency measures and the readiness measures. For a multi family construction, that cost is about $5,300 more per unit. The average new home price in Naperville is about $600,000 so the stretch code is adding a slightly over 1% change in upfront cost which as this next slide will show, it does pay for itself over time. So these life cycle costs here, part of that analysis from the previous slide shows that over the lifetime of a thirty year mortgage, the energy cost savings are $2,300 And then the avoided retrofit costs are $6,400 leading to a total savings over the lifetime of that loan at close to $9,000 So you have that initial cost upfront, a little bit more over time it does end up paying for itself.

So a lot of, one of the points that comes up is that improved energy codes is a deterrence to development. So we've seen many, we have many examples across The United States where a municipality adopted a improved energy code where there was over the long term no long term effects of permits being pulled in that municipality. So what you see typically happen is a big ramp up before the new code takes place. As builders try to get in before the code change, it dips a little bit just to kinda offset that ramp up and then it does stabilize and go back to normal. So in March 2020, Mia, my company, my organization conducted a preliminary analysis which found that energy code adoption has no long term direct correlation on the number of residential single family building permits pulled in counties along Midwestern, the states that border Illinois.

So part of that research was expanded last year in 2024. Again, is no clear negative or positive impact of energy code adoptions in counties on state lines suggesting that the adoption of stronger building energy codes in Illinois does not cause development to shift into neighboring states. Energy codes are not likely a primary driver of development or a lack thereof. And it is critical that policymakers and other decision makers fully understand this relationship to sufficiently support community goals and housing needs objectives. So some resources that are available to municipalities that decide to adopt the stretch code.

There is a $200,000 stretch code building grant program. It's designed to facilitate the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of the Illinois stretch energy code. Provides financial support for education, community engagement, and technical assistance. It aims to streamline the process by offering resources for internal capacity building, public engagement efforts, and technical training for staff responsible for code enforcement. The applications are available through December or until funds are exhausted.

But there is a lot of money still on the table for municipalities. I know there haven't been that many that have applied for this particular grant. So I know that there is still ample room for municipalities to submit an application for this. So additional support that Mia and Slipstream can provide, compliance guidance, targeted training and education, plan review assistance. We can work with builders and for technical guidance, targeted training and education to them as well.

And then for policy making, there is assistance with stretch code adoption or advancement as well. So that is my presentation today. And again, I appreciate your guys' time today.

Thank you, Mark. Or John, sorry. Thank you, John. Okay. Is there any public testimony on this item? There's multiple people that have signed up. So I'll probably just go down the list here. That's probably the best thing for me to do. Call Adam first. Oh, perfect. Adam is already up.

Hi. My name is Adam VanSumeren. Address is 407 East Gartner here in Naperville. I'm one of the owners of Charleston Building and Development. We specialize in residential custom homes. A lot of what we do here is right in Naperville. Thank you for taking the time to listen to us this afternoon. I'll be one of a handful of builders you're going to hear from. Just as our small group that's assembled here, we build over 60 homes locally, just as the group that you're going to hear from. Several of us are multigenerational builders.

Several of us are Maple residents. This isn't just this is our home. This just isn't where we work. Stretch codes being introduced today, they don't seem to bring real value and little or no return on the upfront investment. Our numbers show a little bit differently than the ones shown in the presentation.

I'm just one of several builders that do not support the adoption of these stretch codes. You're going hear several real life scenarios, real proposals on real homes that are currently being built that'll be bid out with meeting some of these prospective compliance stretch code rules. I hope you'll be able to see that the return of the upfront investment does not pay back, the increase on performance is minimal, and the value to the homeowners just isn't present. Personally, on a home that I just started here in Naperville, to achieve the gentleman said most people build on performance, that is correct. But to achieve compliance in the perspective analysis, we would have to put R30 insulation in our walls.

Cost of my clients would be $42,800 to achieve r 30 in the walls. There's a law of diminishing returns that needs to be considered when we're talking about these kind of numbers. I don't want to bore you with too much. You're going to hear plenty more. I just want to thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Adam. The next person is either Dan or Don?

Dan.

Dan. Thank you.

Thank you, BRB members. Dan Jurjavec. I live at 1309 North Loomis Street. Like Adam, I'm a local builder. I own Lake West Custom Homes.

I'm a second generation builder. I'm also a lifelong Naperville resident, so I'm making my comments today both as a business owner, but also as a community member and somebody that wants to maybe add some detail to the conversation with respect to cost to the consumer. So just kind of echoing Adam's sentiments, I think there's going to be some consistencies in some of the comments that you hear today. The proposed stretch code and the associated cost for compliance is compared to the current 2021 codes that we build under, again, with performance measurements so you can actually take tangible measurements of how well a home is performing, you know, the cost and benefit analysis doesn't doesn't make sense. I did go through the exercise with my energy rater of putting together specs that would allow me to be compliant with the proposed 2023 stretch code for a home that we just started construction on.

And I guess, you know, just as a general comment, I think we have an affordability issue in general with new construction. I think you can see it across the entire housing spectrum in Naperville. A lot of this stems from, you know, inflationary realities that started five years ago. But the fact of the matter is, as you can all attest, you guys are all Naperville residents, you've seen where prices have gone in our local housing market. And in the new construction industry, we're certainly seeing those things probably to a higher degree than the resale marketplace would show.

So just as a general analysis for a 4,200 square foot home that we're currently building, which by the way was a fire loss home, so these folks have already gone through the rigors of updated pricing relative to their insurance policy and how much more expensive it is to replace their home that was damaged by fire last year. We have essentially a $19,971 cost increase if we go from our already extremely efficient home that we build under the performance methodology of the 2,021 code that we're currently under to an extrapolated compliance of the 2,023 stretch code. I think in general, you know, when you look at the the purported energy savings over the life of the home on an annual basis, there is no real ROI on this upfront investment. And it's just going to add to an already out of control issue that we have with affordability. You know, I think that if a consumer, a homeowner, somebody that's building a home were inclined to build to a stretch code, that's what they would like to do on their own volition, god bless them.

They should they should have the ability to do that. I think considering the adoption of a code that provides negligible return for extraordinarily higher costs doesn't make any sense at all. So thank you guys for your time. Thank you.

Next person is Christian.

Hello. Christian with Autumn Homes. I'm a second generation builder. As a family, we've been building homes in Naperville since 'seventy nine. We've got over 500 homes in the field.

I'm here to respectfully request that you oppose the adaptation of the stretch code. Echoing some of the builders that were up here previous, we did a cost analysis on a house that I build frequently in Naperville. It's about 3,800 square feet. My cost to my client would have been $24,800 some odd, which just doesn't jive with the analysis that we've seen to date on the stretch code. So my concerns here not only is return on investment, is that it takes away some of my customers' right to choose.

We're a custom home builder. If we would want a client to build to the stretch code, they would have that right with us. That includes the electrification. That includes insulation values right down the list. So I've got major concerns there. The other issue I have too is that as a Naperville resident, as a Naperville area business owner, I'm always representing Naperville as a great community to bring your family to. My concern would be I could have a client where I'm selling Naperville and they might see our adaptation of the stretch code as being extra regulation that they might not want to deal with. In that case, there's other options to choose from. We do work in Downers Grove. We do less work in Lyle.

But my point as a resident, I want to continue to build up the home base, our inventory of homes that are energy efficient. Mainly, I'm in home replacement. I'm tearing down small homes. Were built in 1959, 1962. They've got lead paint. They've got newspaper for insulation. They've got terrible windows and mechanicals. I'm able to scrape that from the inventory and replace it with a beautiful energy efficient home, which impacts our inventory as whole. So with that, I want to thank you for your time. And once again, please oppose the stretch code adaptation. Thank you.

Thank you. Next person is Jeff.

Good afternoon, BRB. My name is Jeff Pawlowski. I own Monument Homes, Custom Home Builder in Naperville here. I'm a first generation home builder, and I've been building for twenty eight years. As a longtime Naperville resident and builder, I'm an advocate for affordable housing solutions in our city.

I'm here today to express serious concerns regarding the potential adoption of the revised stretch energy code package for single family homes. Let me be clear. I support efforts to improve energy efficiency and build a more sustainable future. However, we must also be realistic about the financial impact and policies that could have to our community, especially on those who could least afford it. I'm currently building a new home now that was about 4,000 square feet.

We plugged in the 2023 stretch code revised plans that were just showing you a few minutes ago. And the impact, the direct impact on that to go to that code would cost me slightly over $30,000 to duplicate that home. These are not minor increases. They are costs that will almost certainly be passed on to the consumers and the end buyers. My energy rating person also estimated that these changes will only save roughly $200 per year for the owner, which is an ROI that's simply unacceptable for a property owner.

At the time when housing affordability is already at a critical issue, this code could intentionally shut out middle income families and first time buyers who want to call a Naperville home. The implications go far beyond new construction. Renovation, additions, and routine home improvements could also be greatly impacted by these new codes. So sustainability and affordability must go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other. Let's work to try to find a more balanced solution toward being more energy efficient with future homes. And again, like the other builders, I oppose this new stretch code. Thank you.

Thank you. Next person is Court.

Hi, my name is Court Earhart, 500 East Roosevelt Road in West Chicago. I'm president of Earhart Construction. We're a second generation builder. We have built many, many, many homes over the last sixty one years in Naperville. I'm also currently chairman of the Northern Illinois Home Builders Association Housing Advocacy Committee, representing over two fifty building professionals in our area.

The current energy code is extremely stringent. The current energy code is extremely efficient. On the Department of Energy's website, it shows that building under the current energy code is we're using 50% less energy than a home that was built in 1975. The cost to meet the stretch energy code beyond the current energy code, we reviewed a house that's much smaller than my friends here. It's a 1,900 square foot ranch.

Three bedroom, two bathroom ranch, two car garage with a basement. We met with our energy rating company, Doctor. Nelson and Associates, to review the stretch energy code, to price out what the changes required. Under the prescriptive method, the changes to our homes include insulation changes, framing methods, framing materials, exterior cladding due to a taller structure required by additional insulation in the attic properly installed at the eaves, as well as electrical enhancements and preparation for future changes. The

costs

for these changes were $21,612.86 That was an increased cost per foot for this home of $11.29 That increased the house price of this home by 5%. The annual energy savings of this running it through the software was $98 a year. The energy cost for that home would be $2,213 a year. So it's less than a 5% savings running through these. The low return for this significant investment simply is not warranted.

The stretch energy code is a great option under the current energy code. For those interested in building, that should stay that way. It should stay as an option. It should not be the code. We are already building extremely energy efficient homes. I think we built a great home sixty years ago. I think we built a great home fifty years ago. I think we built a great home forty years ago, thirty, twenty, ten. We build a better home today under the current energy code. The current energy code is already stringent enough.

We do not need to implement the stretch energy code. Please do not implement the stretch energy code as the required energy code in Naperville. The current energy code is already enough. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next person is Greg.

Good afternoon. My name is Greg Overstreet of Overstreet Builders. I live in Oswego, but we build a bunch of houses in Naperville where our office is located at 3947 Caliente Circle, so we're in the South Edge of Naperville. My family has been building houses in Naperville and the surrounding area for more than sixty years. I'm a third generation builder, and I've been a part of building homes since since I was a kid, really, and and I've been doing this full time for over twenty years.

Like like a lot of my colleagues here, I share in their concerns for the suggestion that, you know, that we make further energy efficiency changes. One of my primary concerns is, like a lot of these guys have said, we're already building great houses. They're they're very energy efficient, and we've reached a point of diminishing returns with this. And and, you know, to get to to continue to increase costs, we're we're really getting marginal returns on the investment. On top of it, there's a lot of push for electrification in some of these codes, and I think that we're gonna be challenged with that here in Naperville.

You know, I was at the city council meeting last week, and there's talk of these AI, these stations that we're looking at. And I think there's a lot of concerns about how much more impact the data centers are gonna be putting on on the power grid. So today, my goal is to share with you some information like some of some of these other guys to illustrate some of the real world costs and consequences for a new construction home and the proposed energy code increases. So like my colleagues, I I ran a house or had my energy rater run some numbers on a house that we're currently building in South Naperville in the Hidden Creek subdivision. And it represents it's a very accurate representation of a lot of the homes that we build, averaging 10 to 15 a year in Naperville.

So for insulation increases and all the framing and additional work that it's going to take, we had about 35,000 in costs. And then on top of that, we had some additional costs to meet some of the other criteria for electrification for about $3,700 In total, I kind of looked at it and said, well, a lot of our clients are financing houses. They'd be looking at close to $40,000 of additional finance costs to build a house with us or to meet these requirements. So I plugged some assumptions in and looked at 6% interest rate and a thirty year mortgage length and kind of baked this down to a monthly payment, and they would be looking at an additional $235 and some change a month in increased mortgage costs. Now the flip side of that is looking at how much money would they save.

We work with an energy rater that modeled this house based on the way we would currently build it at our current codes. And then with the increased costs and the increased insulation. And based on that, this house would save a total for heating and cooling energy costs of $308 for the year. So that's $25.67 a month. So when we look at that, you're saving $25 and spending $235 a month.

And so the point is we never really reach a point where there's a payback. You just can run this into indefinite, and there's never a point where we reach a point where we get our full payback. So again, I appreciate your time this afternoon and listening to us and I to oppose adopting the stretch codes.

Thank you. Next person is Cheryl Denton.

Hi. Good afternoon. I want to thank the members of the Building Review Board for the opportunity to provide public comments at today's meeting. I represent NiCorp Gas and the 2,300,000 customers I'm sorry, let me start off. Cheryl Denton, Niagara Gas. My address is 1844 Ferry Road in Naperville. That's my business address. Previous resident of Naperville. Okay. So I'll continue.

Thank you. I represent NiCorp Gas and 2,300,000 customers we serve with clean, safe, reliable, and affordable natural gas in Illinois. Natural gas is three times more affordable than electricity, and more than 90% of our homes and businesses in our region depend on natural gas to keep them warm. These there are several concerning provisions in the Illinois stretch energy code that threatens energy reliability and affordability for Naperville residents and businesses. One concerning provision is the commercial heat pump multiplier.

This provision penalizes businesses for building with natural gas by requiring costly additional efficiency requirements for new businesses that do not install an electric heat pump for space heating and water heating. Energy efficiency gas solutions are available for these businesses, and natural gas is most often half the cost of electricity. Another concerning provision is electric ready requirements. This provision mandates the installation of costly electrical infrastructure where natural gas fired equipment and appliances are to be used in new homes and businesses. This provision increases construction cost while providing no energy efficiency benefits.

At a time when the electrical grid constraints and surging surging electrical prices are a major concern for Illinoisans, Naperville should not be penalizing residents and businesses for choosing natural gas equipment. 90% of the homes and businesses in our service territory depend on natural gas for space heating, cooking, water heating, etcetera, because of the affordability and reliability of natural gas. These concerning provisions and others in the stretch code will push economic development opportunities away from from Naperville, harm small businesses trying to set up shop here, and threaten housing and energy affordability for Naperville residents. A sustainable future for Naperville is possible, and Nycor Gas is committed to providing the city and customers reduced environmental footprints for their excuse me, reduced environmental footprint. We are key partner in the clean energy future and offer our support to the city in considering all energy solutions for

a

better environment. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Next person is Barbara.

Hi. Barbara Benson, Naperville resident, 2512 Spartina Road. Good afternoon. I am the chair of the NEST Building and Development Committee. And we just heard a presentation from Mia on the Illinois stretch code.

Before I begin my statement, I just wanted to provide some historical context that brings us to this important conversation about the stretch code. In September 2021, the Naperville City Council unanimously accepted the Naperville Environment and Sustainability Task Force Sustainable 2036 report that was NEST. The report established a clear goal, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 60% from twenty twelve levels by the end of 2035. This report highlighted that over 75% of the city's emissions come from buildings. So making energy efficiency would be key to achieving this goal.

One of the primary strategies to achieve this reduction is by adopting stronger building and energy codes. So following that report's release, the city held a sustainability workshop. And in that workshop, the city adopted a number of the report's recommendations. You cannot read this, but this is on and was on the city's website of all the objectives that the city said they would try to accomplish. So four of those are these.

The first one was update the Naperville building code to incrementally achieve net zero by 2030 or sooner. Incentivize renewable energy installations or projects that go beyond code beginning in 2025 requiring renewable energy on-site. We know that's not happening. Encourage third party verified rating systems that include significant carbon emissions like LEED and FIES. Establish building performance standards and conducting construction performance testing to measure as built energy efficiency in every future remodel, build out, or new construction project.

So by adopting the stretch code, we would be able to fulfill some of these recommendations. We know the city is currently navigating several challenging decisions related to energy usage, including the city's energy supplier contract, the adoption of the new building and energy codes, and the development of energy intensive projects like data centers. The discussion today is focusing specifically on building residential and energy codes. So for the past few months, I'll remind you, NEST has given public comments to this board in support of the stretch code. We have provided an overview of the code.

We have spoken about its benefits and highlighted how it can improve indoor and outdoor air quality while saving residents and businesses money and future proofing our buildings. We hope that the presentation by Mia today helped you understand the code a little more and identify its importance and value to Naperville. We urge you to uphold the city's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By recommending the adoption of the Illinois Stretch Energy Code to city council, you take a crucial step toward achieving our collective sustainability goals. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any additional public testimony? Come on up please.

Hello. I'm Bruce Jones, 1124 Langley Circle, Naperville, Illinois, longtime resident and volunteer for the city of Naperville sustainability efforts. I'm here to support NEST's position that the city of Naperville should adopt the proposed stretch codes. And my focus is really on the commercial codes since I'm the transportation chairman for NEST. Commercial Building, specifically the 2024 International Energy Conservation Code, IECC, Appendix CG for commercial electric vehicle charging stations.

When a business renovates or builds a new parking lot or garage, that's the time to lay in the infrastructure for electric vehicle supply equipment or charging stations. When the ground is dug up and there is dirt on the ground and they've already got the trenches laid and the conduits in the ground, that's the time to put in the infrastructure for charging stations. Because down the road, many of these businesses will want to add charging stations for their customers and their employees. And it's roughly five to 10 times more expensive to retrofit, retrench, recut, re landscape later when they want to add them. So why do we want to add charging when the parking lot is being constructed or renovated?

Building owners will save money. A small investment now upfront is better than expensive retrofits later. And there are still federal rebates available up to 30% through June and local incentives by the Naperville Electric Utility of 500 to install charging stations. Company employees save money. Many employees who work in Naperville live outside Naperville or in townhouses, condominiums, and apartment buildings that can't have or don't have charging stations.

So if they can't charge at home, the only other really good place to charge is at work. So if they drive to work and they can park and charge their car while they're at work, that helps them and the businesses because it also helps retain employees. It's kind of one of those sticky perks. Electric vehicles are not as expensive as people might think. The electric vehicles today have the same price as gas powered sedans.

So the prices for all electric vehicles is tending to come down. And internal combustion engine cars are going up over time. I also have a presentation I can send to you or give to you which gives a lot of the background for these numbers. So Jeff or somebody on the team can just let me know how to best send that to you. So electric vehicles also have a lower total cost of ownership and are cheaper to operate.

Lower maintenance, their battery prices are coming down, they're less expensive to drive. And even here in Naperville with our electric supply being mainly coal based, you still save one third, one quarter of a pound of carbon dioxide driving an electric vehicle than driving a gas car. The Illinois EPA still offers electric vehicle rebates for new or used electric vehicles with the funding window. There's one coming up on October 28. So people can drive electric vehicles even if they're not rich.

And the people in Naperville who work here can certainly afford electric vehicles. So let's help Naperville be prepared. My recommendation is to add the stretch codes that contain the commercial EVSE, electric vehicle supply equipment, or charging station ordinances. This will also help meet our environmental goals. As I mentioned before, you still save carbon dioxide by driving electric vehicles over ice vehicles.

Thanks. Thank you, Bruce. Is there anybody else? All right, with that, I'll open it up to Q and A from the building review board. Anybody have any questions?

I got one, Elise. From all the builders who spoke, thank you for your time to come out on that. I thought there was an interesting dynamic on the insulation versus the electrification part of the home. If any of you can provide the building review board with a breakdown of those different costs, that would be appreciated. So thank you.

I had a question for John Grossman. Just to clarify, I think you said there was a savings over a thirty year period of $8,800 Is correct?

That sounds about right. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? I'd also like to thank the contractors for coming. Looks like the costs are anywhere between 20,000 and about $40,000 in addition. So that's why I wanted to get that correction from John. So thank you. Thank you all. All right. There is no old business for today. Any new business? Do any members have any new business to discuss? Hearing none, we will adjourn. I would entertain a motion for adjournment. Anybody second?

Bruce, second.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any nays? Alright. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.