Town Council - Regular Meeting

do a company citation um for some of our firefighters. Two of them won a state award. Didn't didn't win it. They they were honored with a state award um last week in Springfield. But firefighting is a team sport. So, it's the total team that made this all happen. None of it could have happened without the rest of these guys to do this. So, just going to go ahead and start out. Um, this is a unit citation presented to the personnel operating at alarm number 25-7012 on November 2nd, 2025 of of the Normal Fire Department. The town of Normal and the Normal Fire Department proudly recognize personnel operating at alarm 25-7012 for their courage, professionalism, and extraordinary teamwork during a life-threatening structure fire on November 2nd, 2025 at North Meadow Village Mobile Home Park. In the early morning hours, fire and rescue crews responded to report of a mobile home fire heavily involved in fire with children trapped inside. Upon arrival, firefighters entered extreme fire conditions, rapidly deteriorating structural stability and confirmed reports of victims trapped in a rear bedroom. Faced with an impossible in faced with impossible conditions and immediate threat to human life, the firefighters acted decipher decisively and without hesitation. Members of the first arriving companies initiated rescue efforts under extreme heat and smoke conditions, breaching the exterior wall of the home to gain access to the trap child while other crews simultaneously established water supply, initiated fire suppression and operations, coordinated

scene management, and prepared for an emergency medical care through the coordinated teamwork and unwavering commitment to uh to duty. Firefighters s uh successfully removed the child from the structure and immediately began advanced life support efforts efforts. Crews continued rescue and search operations despite worsening structural conditions and ongoing possibility of additional victims trapped inside. For their extraordinary bravery during the rescue operations, Lieutenant Matt Hill and firefighter paramedic Nathan Reen were awarded the firefighter uh service medal of valor. Their actions exemplify the highest ideals of courage, sacrifice, and devotion to duty, and their heroism reflects great credit upon the normal fire department and the fire service profession. Furthermore, these actions displayed by every member involved in this incident reflects a high tradition of the fire service. Every firefighter and paramedic on scene played a critical role in this operation, demonstrating the strength of teamwork and the deep commitment firefighters make to protect lives of of others. While sadly the child later succumbed to injuries sustained in the fire, the heroic actions of these crews gave the family precious additional time with their loved one and provided opportunity for the child's legacy to live on through organ donation. The fire the the family expressed profound gratitude of the compassion, courage, and relentless efforts shown by firefighters and paramedics who fought to save their child. For their exceptional service, bravery, teamwork, and dedication to the community during one of the most difficult incidents imagined, the town of Normal Fire

Department proudly presents the unit citation to the following personnel. Uh, Battalion Chief Matt Bersack, Engine 10 was Lieutenant uh, Matt Hill, Engineer Isaac Garretts, firefighter Nathan Rearen, rescue 10 uh, firefighter Al Shaba, uh, firefighter Chase Ditchen on engine 12, Lieutenant Glo, engineer was Matt Steinick, and Jazzy Papalopski was the rear step firefighter. Rescue 12 is uh firefighter Graden and firefighter paramedic Graden and firefighter paramedic Mirren. Um Lieutenant Paul Martin who's just retired from the department. Un engineer Jared Zberist and firefighter paramedic Tyler Hospitalhorn. And rescue 13 was firefighter paramedic Allen and firefighter paramedic Van Whitaker. And so we just wanted um to honor these guys. Um it's purely an honor to be the chief of the fire department with these guys um every single day. And so congratulations to them. My personal congratulations uh to the firefighters of the town of Normal, all of them and especially the group that we're honoring here tonight. uh their professionalism, their dedication to duty and service to the community really stands out and uh we should be thanking

them every day and we have an opportunity now to recognize some really truly heroic behavior and we're I I can speak for my council. We're incredibly proud of the members of Normal Fire Department. So, thank you Thank you.

Call to order a meeting for the Normal Town Council for Monday, May 18th, 2026. Please call the role. Mayor Cous here. Mr. Preston here. Miss Loren here. Mr. Buyers here. Mr. Roberge here. Miss Smith here. Mr. McCarthy

here. We'll begin with the pledge of allegiance. Uh we'll start with a public comment to tonight. We have a number of public commenters at the beginning of the meeting and one public commenter at the tail end of the meeting. Rules are quite simple. Uh we ask you to just come forward, state your name for the record, and you may have three minutes uh to speak. Our first public commenter is Patrick Do. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Patrick Dillard. I've been a taxpaying resident of the town of Normal for my entire adult life. I speak tonight in support of the underpass project. 175 years ago, it was a big thing to have a railroad come through the core of your town. Today, it is both a blessing and a curse. The access to rail passenger service is evident with upsttown station being the second busiest station in Illinois. But the regular rumble of long freight trains and the mere existence of the tracks pose public safety challenges and development hurdles. Public safety and development are primary duties of the town and council that need to be addressed. Tonight's vote is not about whether we should move forward with the underpass. That decision was voted on and made several years ago following at least three public hearings where residents were presented with six options including no build at great crossing, two overpass options, and two underpass options. It should be noted

that the atgrade crossing was eliminated because railroads simply won't agree to a standalone bike ped crossing. All railroads are in lock step in this position. Even with the clear indication that an underpass with public spaces attached would be the costliest. Residents participating in the public hearings overwhelmingly selected the underpass as a preferred option. Rather, tonight as trustees, the decision before you is whether the town has sufficiently negotiated an agreement to implement a significant public works project that does not put a burden on our residents. The answer to that is yes. First, the town has demonstrated their capability to successfully implement projects. The Normal Theater, Uptown Station, Children's Discovery Museum, Uptown Circle, and indeed the entire Uptown Transformation are clear examples. But beyond that, we benefit from top-notch public services. Police, fire, parks, water, sewer, snow removal, and garbage pickup are excellent and have never suffered while these projects were implemented. Second, the securing of grant funding, especially the build grant, demonstrates federal and state officials confidence in the state, the town's uh capabilities. Finally, I believe the agreement tonight was has improved since November. The town has negotiated a resolution to the build grant deadline that significantly reduces risk. In addition, the general contractor is now a local contractor, meaning more of the funds spent stay in the community. On the surface, one might think voting no is protecting taxpayers, but I would argue the opposite is true. Significant dollars have already been invested that would be wasted and perhaps need to be repaid with a vote not to proceed. 27 million of dollars of our state and local tax dollars would be allowed to go somewhere else. That amounts to $530 per resident. Not to mention the loss of $13

million in local union payroll that would trickle throughout the economy. Lastly, future attempts to secure grant programs would be hampered by our inability to compete complete these grants. I urge you to support the underpass project. Thank you. Our next uh speaker is David Yur. And if I mispronounced that, I apologize. Eurovitz.

I don't have a written document that I'm going to read. Uh my thought is the the town has been here for over a hundred years. The school has been here for over a hundred years. uh the trans the people transporting or moving back and forth across the tracks have done it for quite some time. Uh and one of the questions that I have to the council members and anyone voting anyone involved in it is if you didn't have the money at home, would you spend spend the money for something that isn't absolutely necessary? I understand the man before me explained several points that seem to make sense, but if you don't have the money, uh, where is it going to come from? And I did read that it's going to come from visitors. Well, are visitors going to come because they can spend more money for a hotel or motel stay? I would suggest uh no. Uh and the other part part of that is a lot of people that live here have people come and visit them. They don't want to be spending more also. So I would I would venture to ask you to vote no. Thank you.

Uh our next speaker is Kevin Woodward.

Good evening. I'm here tonight representing the MLAN County Libertarian Party. And we're here to speak tonight about data centers. Libertarians believe fully in property rights and that the property owner should be able to do what they like with their own property. We're also huge on capitalism and we believe that data centers are probably the biggest opportunity that we have in front of us right now when it comes to growth indeed in the world, the country, the nation, and our community. We believe that these should be embraced, not pushed away. They should not fall victim to the NIMI syndrome. Those who don't know, that's not in my backyard. Sometimes that's a racial thing, but often it's not. It's just that uh when people want things, they just just don't want in their neighborhood. And I hate to see Normal be that way. A number of years ago when we had a Mitsubishi plant, Normal was known as Etown. It was out front and it stayed out front. It recognized that Rivian presented quite the opportunity and it took advantage of that. I can't imagine normal being the kind of place that would shun any kind of great futuristic development away. If we have problems with water and power and these are the two that are often raised, it's quite the trend right now to ask these companies to to what what's called BYOP, which is bring your own power. And they can do the same with the electric. And I think if we have someone that wants to come to normal that they would be more than willing to do that. I don't really understand why we think we need a moratorum. To me, that's a negative word. It sounds like we're against business. We don't want to build this. And maybe someone can explain to me why we need to do that. I understand that no one's coming today and somebody might come tomorrow. But it seems to me that the thing we need to do is do what you're talking about, which is go ahead

and do what you need to to get your ducks in a row, to get the requirements you would like to have them meet on paper. Understand we think it might take six months. That's pretty fast for for a city government, but that that's something that we can shoot for. And if we can beat that, we'd be better off. If a moratorum provides us with some legal reason to tell the company no right now, maybe you can you go further into that and help me understand that. But I would just hope that we could avoid being uh negative and that word just has moratorum. It just sounds like we don't want you and and I'm afraid that could be a problem and a perception problem for the city of Normal. Um today's governments do have to learn to work faster and the AI has forced everybody to do that really. A few years ago, we had no idea what it was. And then a couple years ago, we found out that it could help us write articles and things like that. And if you're like me today, you can't live without it. You want an instant answer uh right off the bat, and it can do that for you. But it also can research so many articles that you can ask it a pretty detailed question, and it'll give you a a pretty detailed answer. And my understanding is that this thing is going to really blow our minds as it continues to come on come on upon us. Um, deliberative bodies have to move fast and they have to move faster and if they don't in this day and age they're going to become irrelevant. That's not something we want to happen. We want to have things deliberated but we've got to do so quickly. I would urge you to not follow the the example of New York City's mayor who blasts businesses and runs them out of his own city which has also been done in Chicago closer to home.

Mr. I'm going to ask you to wrap up. New York City timeline. New York City has what they call Wall Street. The mayor of Houston, Texas is people to come to his city and he's calling it Yall Street. And I'd like just to see Normal maintain its identity that it has now of embracing the future. That's what we've got to do. And I'd appreciate you not passing a moratorum. Thank you for your time and your patience. Uh

next speaker is Chad Burke. Good evening uh honorable mayor, city council members, fellow residents of Normal. Thank you uh for this opportunity to speak uh on these serious concerns surrounding uh proposed hypers scale AI data center uh in the surrounding uh community. While economic growth uh matters, we must carefully weigh the established and documented burdens these facilities place on taxpayers, our local environment, and the quality of life. Um, public forums have already shown strong resident opposition and for good reason both here and throughout the nation for these data centers. First, the massive resource demands. A typical hypers scale AI data center consumes between roughly 50 to 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to power tens of thousands of homes. in our area. This would strain the local grid, drive up electricity rates uh for every resident and business. Unlike the data center operator, we would not as citizens be able to

negotiate rates. The corporation would cooling would be another issue. Uh these facilities would use up to possibly 5 million gallons per day uh to use evaporative systems uh that would produce visible steam plumes and require massive fans. The water our region relies on the Mohamad Aquifer, as everyone usually knows, the sole source drinking water for just under 1 million central Illinois residents. Local wells and lakes have already hit critically low levels during recent droughts. Historical presidents elsewhere show industrial scale water extraction leading to depleted wells and long-term aquifer damage. Noise and vibration add to the burden. Cooling fans and backup diesel generators that they bring in routinely exceed 60 to 95 dB continuously with peaks reaching between 100 and 105. louder than a motorcycle or jackhammer constantly 24 hours a day in your backyard of some communities. Not like an airplane taking off and going away. It would be consistently there for the duration. Infrasound and low frequency vibrations travel far and have caused documented health complaints in neighboring communities. Economically, the deal is unfair to taxpayers. Illinois has already granted data centers almost a billion dollars in lifetime tax breaks and exemptions through incentives. A single large facility can mean millions in lost property and sales of tax revenue each year potentially tens of hundreds of millions over 50 to 30 years while delivering few permanent jobs roughly between 20 to 100 once the construction project is complete. Construction labor

is mostly temporary once the job is completed and they bring in their own uh labor. Residents foot the bill for grid upgrades also water infrastructure and emergency services. Yes, Mr. I'm going to ask you to sum up here please.

Two sentences. The private company capture all the upside where we residents and taxpayers bear the costs. Finally, transparency is lacking on because of NDAs with the elected officials. Thank you uh for your time. I uh I hope you strongly consider the moratorum until future accommodations can uh happen. Thank you. Have a good night.

Our next speaker is Jeff Lord. Good evening. My name is Jeff Lord. I live in Normal. I'm here to talk on the uh financial side of the underpass. I spoke a couple months ago regarding some red flags I uh seen from the construction project and all I see now is it seems like they're getting a little bit bigger. Although town staff it looks like they worked diligently to make this pro project feasible. But I think the real issue is here with the council. This project is experienced numerous delays, changes, increased costs at every turn. a tax increase and now taking the town further in debt on something that is uh questionable whether it's necessary the underpass seems to me it's not within the core priorities and services of the town which are police and fire protection EMS maintaining good streets water and sewer services town or trash disposal building inspections and parks and recreation What initially started out basically was trying to get people from the parking lot to the other side of the railroad tracks has now turned into a need in attempt to further land development and speculation. speculation on the plans of a southside

project. Then if that happens, you know, we've already heard talking about water electricity on AI projects. This would take more of that also. And then no doubt there could be property and sales tax abatements on to attract businesses. Commercial land development. You know, this is a risky type of speculation. history is full of development spec speculation bus. The difference here is you know those were private developers funded by banks who for the most part no longer are with us. You know the town uses tax dollars and the primary source of revenue is taxation and fees which we have seen over the last 20 years in the town of Normal your taxes and fees have continued to go up and up and up. Construction projects usually have a cash component from the developer along with contingency fund for unseen circumstances that occur in construction and to cover cost overruns. Where are the conting where are the contingency funds? Future tax increases on normal residents. I do not know the answer. You know, it's been mentioned that several members are worried about the already $3 million spent in banking. Usually, your first loss is your smallest loss. And when you compare this to the estimated $25 million in cost for the town, which breaks down roughly 15 million in principal and 10 million in interest, and that's only the beginning of the cost. I just strongly encourage exercise good discernment and prudent financial management. Thank you.

Uh our next speaker is Michael who's at 4000 North London Street. Michael, I'm sorry I couldn't read your printing on your last name. We'll hear we'll hear your name in a moment. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Council for giving me the opportunity to address you tonight. My name is Michael Dian. I'm a 27year-old resident normal. I've been here for about three years now. But, uh, my fiance and I have decided that this is the place that we would like to lay our roots, however that may be. And before I make my full comments, I'd like to recognize Council Member Smith. Thank you very much, madam, for responding to my email and sending you one back. I appreciate your detail. Thank you. uh you gave me a lot of great insight that I could not find from uh public sourced reporting and I very much appreciate that. Um uh to continue on to my statement u my issue with the underpass is very simply this. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. I think it's a well-conceived idea. The only problem is I believe that we have simply passed the time to do so. um the world around us has changed since this was first the idea was first introduced and the people said that this was a good idea and I think this is an opportunity to go back and not make a mistake. Um, one thing that Councilman Smith pointed out to me that I would like to question is the idea that the uh taxes, the raised uh hotel tax and the food and beverage tax is necessarily going to help with the bond debt and just the debt in general encountered by this project. Um, my question I would like the council to consider on that matter is when there is an economic downturn, which we are either already in or very close to, what is the first thing that people stop doing? and that is traveling or going out to eat things that so we're we're

tying this debt to entertainment dollars which may very shortly be going down if they haven't already which they have slightly but they may be going down further soon. So I would caution against that. I think you're putting your financial eggs in a basket that's about to go away. Um and I would just again to repeat what uh another gentleman has already said. I don't believe this is a necessity and I think this is just more of a time right now um where we should be a little bit more careful with our town dollars and I understand a lot of work has gone into this. The council, the mayor's office, the staff have done a lot of work and I understand that and I am very sorry that there has been money already put into this. I think we have a chance to go back and I would encourage the council to not get stuck in the sunken cost fallacy where just because you have already started a failed endeavor means you have to continue. You have a chance to turn back uh and please do and then revisit the issue and things look more positive and those uh well-laid plans that you have in place actually look like they can come to fruition. Thank you. Our next speaker is Ryan Herren.

Good evening. My name is Ryan Herren. I'm a resident of Normal Illinois and a member of Illinois people action. I wanted to address the council and the mayor tonight in support of the moratorum on data centers in normal. Um I I think it is a prudent thing to do at this point in time. Um as other speakers have said before me data centers use massive amounts of power um water and can cause increases in air pollution. Um and we at this point in time um a moratorum is necessary so our town can establish the guard rails necessary uh to protect our water, to protect our energy, to protect um our rateayers from the impacts of these data centers. I would encourage this council uh to consider baseline guard rails uh that mirror those of the power act currently proposed in the Illinois House and Senate. Um where data centers may only use amount of power proportional to the amount of clean energy that they bring to the grid. Um this protects consumers from subsidizing the costs of these data center uh the distribution and the transmission infrastructure. Further guardrails of bringing their own clean capacity and energy must be established. Currently, data centers data centers in Illinois may bring um any type of power and there's no state guard rails that establish clean energy use in Illinois. The use of fossil fuels is often used and greenwashed through that of carbon capture and sequestion. Uh this is a commonly greenwashed practice that we've seen from major tech companies such as Google and others where they bring their own power. It is um it is then captured and stored underground where it can

potentially breach and into our drinking waters. For examples of this uh the largest carbon capture and sequester project in Illinois has is down in Decar and has already seen two breaches. If you look in Missouri, there is there have been breaches that have had massive public health impacts. So as we bring as we look at these guard rails, I further as we talk about water and the use establishing guard rails that would permit only the use of gray water and not clean drinking water. And we we must not allow data centers and their power generation sources that they bring to the table to use our diminishing water resources regardless of their willingness to pay. Residential and existing business water use must be prioritized over the new water intensive data centers and their power generation sources. I I I applaud this coun council for bringing this to the agenda and encourage during this time of the moratorum to establish those guidelines in the absence of the guidelines and guard rails uh in Illinois. Thank you.

And our uh final speaker tonight is Terry O'Brien. Thank you, Mayor Cous. Um, it's actually Tony O'Brien. Um, bear with me. Um, I am not a public speaker. I'm a construction worker, just like the men and women you see in this room wearing the reflective orange or green. Um, I'm the business manager of the operating engineers local 649. Most people don't know what an operating engineer is, but it's a heavy equipment operator. 99% of the people you see on the roads and bridges right now are represented by our organization. And that's why I'm here to talk about the the underpass. Um, I do have a prepared statement only because once again, I am a construction worker and not a politician or a public speaker. I actually have a guy for that. Um, I stand before you here today in strong support of the Underpass project because this pro project represents more than concrete and steel. It represents opportunity, safety, and economic growth and investment in the future in our community. Kind of like me, I spent all weekend at Champion Fields paying for ridiculous amounts of concession food. Um, but I think that is part of your tax too as well. Projects like this create good paying union jobs, hardworking men and women right here in our region. Every hour worked in this project means pension contributions. Retire. It secures retirements for skilled trades women who have spent their careers building communities like this one. It means health insurance contributions, provides health care for working families. These aren't abstract

benefits. They're directly support local households, local businesses, and the overall strength of our economy. Just as important, these workers pay taxes. The wages earned on these projects generate local and state and federal taxes. Revenue that uh goes right back into the schools, roads, emergency services, and public infrastructure. Uh, another thing that uh is solid about this project is they're using a local contractor. Using a local contractor is another critical piece of this project success. Local contractors hire local workers. They purchase materials from local suppliers and they reinvest profits in the community. Pretty sure you've seen all those red PJ hair trucks driving around normal. Pretty sure everybody in this room's seen them. Um the economic impact stays here. Um local contractors also have vested interest in the quality long-term success of the project because it's their community as well. I see I'm running out of time here. So, I urge you to support this project, the long-term benefits it will bring to workers, communities, our and our entire community and the men and women that you see in this room and all the men and women in MLAN County that would come here to work and spend their tax dollars here. Mayor Cous and the council, I appreciate your time.

That concludes our public comment tonight. We'll move to the omnimous agenda items that will be taken under a single vote unless a council member would like to pull an item for discussion. Um I don't necessarily want to pull an item, but I was wondering if the AI can be activated for the um subtitles as we're people are speaking. Miss Garaju I think is on it. Right. Thank you. And and that's it for me. Okay. Motion for approval. Move approval. Second.

Items uh under omnibus tonight or approval of the minutes of the regular council meeting of May 4th, 2026. A report to receive and file town of normal expenditures for payment as of May 13, 2026. A motion to approve recommended Harmon Arts Grants Awards. a resolution to accept bids and award a contract of Stark Excavating Incorporated for the 2026 bridge and covert repairs project. And that's in the amount of $877,425. Please call RO. Mr. Preston, I Miss Lauren, I Mr. Buyers,

I Mr. Roers, I Miss Smith, I Mr. McCarthy. Hi, Mayor Cous.

Hi. Those items are approved. We move to general orders. And we have four items on general orders. And u for for the sake of continuity on this, I'm going to recommend u that we have all our discussion first on the four items. Um, since they're all related, they are an ordinance amending u bond purchases, a resolution authorizing the execution of a joint funding agreement with the Department of Transportation, a resolution authorizing an amendment with Limon Technologies to relocate uh fiber in the uptown and a resolution to award a contract to PJ hair for construction the underpass. So, uh, I think we have staff invitation.

Yes. Yes, we do. Thank you, mayor. Um, as mayor indicated, staff would like to talk about, um, all of these four topics at the same time and do a brief presentation, hopefully answer some of your questions in advance and provide information that will be useful. Um since all four of these items are certainly linked significantly to the underpass project and ultimately the final action item tonight, meaning the um PJ hair proposed construction contract. Um we would like to talk again about all four of these at the same time. So I'm going to ask Mr. Otto, Mr. Hune to come forward. We have a just a brief presentation to talk a little bit about where what we presented to you in November, the action you took in November, and what has happened since then, what brought us to tonight, and then we will talk specifically about um these four action items and uh go from there. So, u Mr. Mr. Han and Mr. Otto, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you, Miss Ree. Uh we appreciate the opportunity to update the council tonight on um just kind of review some of the project goals, but also update you on where we've been since we last uh discussed this at a meeting on November 3rd and then provide a uh update on some additional funding we received as well as go over the current financial funding scenario for the project. Um just uh just briefly go over, you know, project goals uh remain the same. Um, even though we're about six months down the road since we last discussed this from

November, um, we want to provide a safe grade separated railroad crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists. Um, provide ADA compliant and accessible design and accommodations for all users. provide safe access to the south Amtrak boarding platform, eliminate the barrier between the Uptown North and the future Uptown South development, as well as promote economic development both with jobs creation in Uptown as well as uh future development in all of Uptown. Uh next, we'll kind of go through uh recent project milestones. This is uh some of the events um that we've taken and some of the actions we've taken since we last discussed this. As you know, in November of 25, uh council initially awarded the project to Milstone Weber. Um the uh Milstone Weber um notified the town in January that they were unable to complete the project due to concerns uh with their own workload uh timeline concerns and their you know their confidence in able their in their ability to deliver the project. So they have uh withdrawn their proposal from consideration. Um, also notice from Milstone Weber, the town contacted the second bidder, which is PJ Hair, uh, a local contractor, uh, the town began negotiations with PJ Hair and has been in discussions with them, uh, since that time. Uh, we've worked very closely with them as we've discussed the project and, uh, work collaboratively with all project stakeholders. That would include the Federal Rail Administration, IDOT, and uh, Union Pacific Railroad. Um, in February 26, uh, the town had been in discussions, uh, with the FRA regarding build grant expenditures, and in February, uh, FRA gave the town notice regarding how those expenditures needed to happen. Uh, the date of

September 30th, 2027 has been thrown out there a lot. We've talked about that as the the build grant expiration deadline. And in that time frame, we have established that we can expend build grant dollars and as long as we expend those dollars prior to September 30th of 2027, then they they would not expire. So what that does is it allows us more time on the back end of the project to complete the project. And we'll talk a little bit more about that in just a little bit and where that puts us in terms of a overall completion deadline. Um, in March of 26, PJ Harris submitted an updated draft proposal to us uh that allowed uh additional conversations regarding uh some value engineering items. Um, mostly revolving around the temporary shoring for the project. um they have had some ideas on both constructibility as well as ways to save money um in the underpass area related to how we hold up uh the embankment while we are constructing the permanent walls. So that's temporary shoring. So with those ideas, we submitted a request to Union Pacific Railroad. Um obviously all this work is taking place mostly on Unip Pacific property and they worked with us and in April um they provided a approval for the ideas presented on how to modify the temporary shoring system for the project. So that approval combined with the FRA build grant funding clarification from the FRA has allowed us to push the overall substantial completion date to June 1st of 2028 as the new proposed uh completion date. Um we still have to expend the build grant funds by that September 30th, 2027 date, but the overall project will be completed in June. It gives us an extra fall date and

an extra spring construction period to complete the various items on either side of the railroad essentially the north plaza, the south plaza, um landscaping and the various aesthetic components of the project. Um so in also in late April uh we were able to finalize the proposal from PJ hair. Um, so the new funding cost is $33,867,447. In addition to uh some of the cost savings that were we were able to implement um in our negotiations with PJ Hair, the town also received additional grant funding from the Illinois Department of Transportation. Uh this grant is called the local project funding grant uh LP or LPF. the this grant is for local transportation projects that enhance mobility and quality of life. And so this project uh falls right into those criteria. Um so what we received was a $2.5 million grant that will go towards construction engineering. Uh you may remember on November 3rd of 25 uh council approved a contract with Clark Deetsz out of Champagne um to provide construction engineering services. Uh it's a very large project. Uh it's not uh a project that our workload will allow current town staff to supervise and manage. And so Clark Deetsz will uh should council approve would be the construction engineer um and provide staffing to ensure contract compliance with the documents and provide overall coordination for the project uh going forward. And I'll ask Mr. Hume to talk a little bit about the current funding scenario. Thank you, Mr. Otto. Um, this slide here is to kind of recap and update council on the underpass funding model. I direct your attention to the upper left table there where it says funding source. Uh,

to recap, um, so we have 16.157 million of federal build fund grant money. Uh, we have $3 million of section 130 money for final design. We have 6.25 million from Illinois Commerce Commission funds. And then of course the town's uh local share at that time was 2.9 2.89 million for a total of 28.3. Now that that estimate there was prior to construction bids being opened uh and known. Um fast forward now uh to or to November of 25 construction bids were opened up. Uh costs uh increased significantly as the council is aware for the project in terms of construction. Uh there was some uh value engineering that took place to help mitigate some of that cost increase, but in the end uh it was determined that we needed to increase funding by $12 million to make the project viable and complete. So the town's contribution uh would grow from a 2.89 million to 14.89 million or $12 million increase. At the council action on November 3rd, uh as you're aware, the council passed a $12 million bond authority to issue and then two tax increases to support the debt service for that bond issue. Um, since then, uh, as Mr. Otto mentioned, we had a change out in the contractors. Uh, Bill Milstone Weber, uh, original bid was at 32.064 million for the construction of the of the contract. Um, they they pulled out of the contract as Mr. Otto mentioned. Uh, PJ hair stepped in with a bid of 33867. Uh, that represents an eight $ 1.8 million increase in total construction cost for the project. Uh, also during that time, Mr. uh, Mr. Mr. Auto mentioned that uh we had an increase in grant funding that became available to the town to fund to to um fund this project. So essentially we have an increase in the construction cost of this project of of 1.8 uh we have a new funding source of grant of 2.5. So uh with that extra grant money that we were

fortunate to get from ID do uh that made the it mitigated the $ 1.8 million increase in cost. So from November to to this evening, uh we're still at the same uh contribution from the town, the 2.89 million original contribution and the addition of the $12 million yet to be issued uh in terms of bond proceeds um at $42.8 million. Uh you can see the very last part of this slide is the lower right corner. It kind of breaks down, it summarizes the funding by grant versus local funding. If you add the the bill grant money, the section 130 money, uh the Illinois Commerce Commission funds, and then of course a new ID dot grant, it's 27.9 million of total grant funding for the project uh from grant resources. And of course, the local match remains the same as it was in November when it was approved um in November at the 14.89 million. It's about a 6535 split in terms of total funding for the project.

Thank you, Mr. Hune. Uh so should council um approve a contract award tonight, uh next steps would be executing contract with PJ Hair followed by continuing to work with uh Lumen, the fiber optic company to remove the fiber optic line uh out of the way of the new underpass. Uh planned construction start date approximately July um maybe late June. Um and then build grant the build grant fund expenditure would be September 30th of 2027. Um and we talked a little bit about the substantial completion of June 1st 2028. So uh with that I'd turn it back over to Miss Reese.

Sure. Um thank you gentlemen. So that's a that's a lot of information which I believe is um generally in each of the individual council reports but as a whole you saw it in these few slides. Just to summarize um this project while everyone not everyone agrees certainly this has been identified as a priority for a number of years. Um we are looking at 27.9 million of grant funds. Um certainly those grant funds are dedicated to the project. We cannot accept those and redirect them to something else. Occasionally we hear from individuals that we should um use those dollars and spend them elsewhere. That is not an option. Um so we do we do feel um very appreciative that we've received such support through our state and federal agencies. Um, should council determine that they would like to terminate this project and not move forward, we do have a risk and we wanted to share with you that the risk would be an obligation to repay the build grant dollars that we have already already drawn down. That would equate to approximately $2.5 million. So that would be a risk if we choose not to move forward. Um, I think one other of course notable item is that the town's financial contribution as we defined in November remains the same as we're coming to you tonight. Um, so that's um definitely reflecting the support we've received from this new grant. And um so the items for your attention this evening kind of going in order. The first item is um asking council to amend an or an ordinance to amend two ordinances frankly. So it's an ordinance

to amend the two ordinances to um to issue debt and one is associated with the $12 million that would be the new debt issue for this particular project. The other ordinance that you had adopted in November pertained to 43.675 $675 million debt issue. That's for refunding. Obviously, when council approved that those ordinances in the fall and authorized us to refund some current bonds and also issue new debt, we did not move forward. A because we don't have an executed contract with the vendor. So, we didn't issue debt for the $12 million project. and B, in terms of refunding, we felt that the market wasn't quite where it should be for us to take advantage of appropriate funding um proceeds and refunding proceeds. So, we have not gone through the refunding process. So, we're asking council to renew those debt um ordinances and give us a new window of time. The ordinances you adopted in November had um a period of time that they expire on June 1st, I believe. Correct.

And we would not be issuing debt. Regardless of how council chooses um to go on the project, we we presume you want to approve and tell us to issue debt. We certainly wouldn't do that in the next 10 days or so. So, we're asking for council to authorize those ordinances for a new um six-month period of time. The or a little bit longer, I think, through December.

Through December 6th, yes, six months. and and so that gives us a new window for these debt issuances. The second item that we're asking council to approve is the agreement with Illinois Department of Transportation for this new $2.5 million grant. The third item would be amending the Lumen Technologies um telecommunications fiber relocation. So, amending the contract that we adopted way back in fall of 2024. Um, amending that to approximately another $225,000 for them to put in a temporary relocation of fiber. And then the last action item would be asking council to approve an award of contract to PJ hair. So, those items are all strategic in terms of their placement. one is the debt, then the grant, and then the fiber relocation, and then the final construction contract. So, so that's the information we wanted to share, and certainly we are available to answer any questions council may have.

Uh, Mr. Hume, just for the general audience, could you give us a brief overview of of the refunding process so people understand what that is?

Sure. It's very similar to refinancing your mortgage on your home. Uh, we have that outstanding that we've issued um that at a certain x an interest rate the market supports a better interest rate on the on that debt. Uh it doesn't so much anymore. Even Mrs. Reese's comments, we're waiting for it to improve. Um if it does improve to a point where we see value added to refund that debt in terms of savings of interest cost, um then we would execute the the bond refunding bond issue. So essentially, you're taking debt you currently have, paying at a certain interest rate, and you're going to refinance it at a lower interest rate and receive that um that benefit.

And I and I would add the refunding proposal, the ordinance that we're asking council to authorize for the refunding of the existing debt is not related directly to the underpass project. That is just a separate financial item. the timing just happens to be um brought to you at the same time that we would wanted authorization to issue new debt. Correct. So, I'm going to start with an ordinance amending ordinance 639 and ordinance 6040 to extend the date for sale of bonds by the town of Normal by the town pursuant to those ordinances.

Thank you. And again, we're going to have overarching discussion. We will vote on each of these items separately. We'll not vote on them as a whole. Anyone like questions for for staff at this point and then we'll go right into discussion. Um so I'm only tackling the uh ordinance the first ordinance there that talks about the increasing the window for the new bonds and uh extending the possibility of refinancing. Just to be clear, when we talk about refinancing, we are not looking at increasing the principle at all. So the amount that we would go to market with would be the existing outstanding principle on any bonds we seek to refinance so that we're we're not uh adding new debt in that way. But the hope is that we would in fact lower the interest expense going forward. Is that accurate? That is correct. An option would be you could issue new money with debt, but in historically we we just look at basically taking our current debt as outstanding as it is and refinancing under a different interest rate. We never extend the terms. Uh we could be very kind of a vanilla uh option. So we're just essentially saving on interest costs on existing debt.

Okay. And at this time, should I go into the other issues or or Sure, if you would like. Okay. Um so I had sent some questions forward. Um and I also wanted to emphasize that the ID dot funding of 2.5 million that was a competitive process where there were either 223 or 233 um grantees that received the award and normal was fortunate to be one of those out of a $400 million bucket that I do had to to be awarded these funds. Correct.

That's correct. Yes. Okay. Um and and then in terms of the the lumen contract, um what we're talking about is this this is an additional cost, but that additional expense was factored into some contingency budgeting with the the contract. Is that correct? That's correct. Yes.

Okay. So the the overall contract that hair has provided uh in factors in the possibility of contingency for the possibility of some unseen expenses. And so um this temporary relocation of utilities is simply an indication that we are encountering this because of Lumen's u request to do something a little differently than what they had originally envisioned. But we're not adding to the contract price. We're simply allocating that we're recognizing this is essentially a change order that is tapping into contingency fund. Is that accurate?

Yes. The contract with Lumen provided for overall relocation of the project uh due to delays with permitting constructability issues on Union Pacific's rightway. um they recently notified the town that they needed this additional temporary relocation in order to meet the project schedule and allow us to move forward. So that's why the $225 20 $225,000 addition is before you tonight. And in terms of precedent, there was a um business located in Uptown that had an issue with utility relocations when they went to um expand their business. And who absorbed the cost of that utility relocation for that business? Miss Miss Reese, if they don't know,

uh I believe you're talking about the Fiala Brothers expansion of um the development on uh East Befort and the Amaran utility lines and utility poles had to be relocated. I believe that was a town expense and we were reimbursed by the TIFF. Okay. And and in terms of utility relocations, when we bit that chunk of of the apple, did we anticipate that let's go ahead and take care of of utilities in the uptown area since this could be something we might encounter at a later date or is are are we asking are we pretty much done with utility relocations?

No, I wouldn't say we're done. We're we're handling them generally as development occurs. So the the 100 block of East Bufort on the south side, some of that utility work has been done um elsewhere in Uptown and has been been done. College Avenue might require some utility relocates when development happens adjacent to College Avenue. So wouldn't say we're done, but we're not anticipating any additional surprises on utility relocation as it relates to this underpass project. That's a Mr. Auto question.

Uh we are not. Uh Lumen, the fiber optic telecommunications line is the last u utility that is physically in the way. So everything else has been either temporarily relocated or is permanently relocated. And in terms of the ability to manage a budget, manage a project and keep it on budget. Um, how about how many projects is normal managing? Now, just say with the Illinois Department of Transportation where there's ongoing reporting required to to um basically account for the project dollars that have been awarded by by ID do. The town has many projects under management that utilize I do reporting requirements, I do dollars, state dollars, federal dollars. Uh we work with them closely on many projects. Um probably too many for me to recall off the top of my head. Uh but projects large projects such as West College Avenue, uh Franklin Avenue Bridge, there there's a lot um

issue pedestrian safety study. Yes, the campus safety study that we're currently in the midst of. So we have expertise on staff and have a lot of experience in working with IDOT and their reporting requirements. So is it safe to say that that the town of Normal has a good reputation with the state departments for our ability to to bring projects in on budget? I believe so. Yes.

Okay. Um, and and in reading through my emails, there was one comment that was saying that it was irresponsible to have spent 2.5 million that we might now have to repay if we don't go forward with this um already before we have broken ground. Could you speak to the kinds of things that go into the advanced preparation for a large project that would necessitate spending dollars upfront?

Yes, it's very common to have to relocate uh large utilities and numerous utilities for large scale projects. Um road projects typically require relocation of everything from power, gas, telecommunications. Um there's just a lot that goes into it, especially expansion projects which build new facilities, widen roads, uh provide additional capacity in some way. We expand out into parkway areas, areas that previously were used by utilities that now are needed for project um implementation. And so it's very common that these are yearslong processes. So um working with the various utilities it's very common to you know have four five six seven in this case 10 years um in advance of conversations prior to the actual relocation in the project. So I'd say it's very common that these dollars would be spent upfront for large-scale projects like the underpass project. And you're not even speaking to the idea of developing the design and the plans to get initial approval to know that we can move forward with this particular concept of a project. Correct.

That's correct. Yeah. Utility relocation processes are typically separate but concurrent with overall plan development and design. And and again just to clarify the 2.5 million ID dot award um which will cover the Clark Deetsz engineering the Clark De contract had already been part of the underground price tag and now we're simply um identifying that and isolating that as something to be funded by these I do grant dollars. That's correct. Okay. Um, I think I'll hold off on my other questions and give others a chance to speak. Thank you,

Mr. Preston.

Okay. So, uh, I have a couple questions that, um, seem to be pretty consequential, at least in my mind, uh, that it's important to get some clarity on upfront before uh, diving into anything specific with the project or my opinion about it, um, as a result. So last November when this came to us with Milstone Weber, one of the actions that council had to that came before council and the majority approved was a modified grant agreement with FRA um which was required by them per that um council packet at the time uh because of the update in uh project budget and timeline. Um and my understanding is we had to fill out a grant um agreement request form that took a number of months to kind of hear back on. It was quite a process. Here we are now again with a different budget and certainly a different timeline. Uh was the FRA modified grant agreement required this time or not? It was it is part of the process but our overall comfortability with that process is different this time. based on our prior experience. So, we believe that uh in our conversations with FRA, the build grant dollars are something that we can expend up to February or excuse me, September 30th of 2027. So, in other words, our local match would come on the back end of the project. And so, we will be working with FRA as we move forward uh to modify the grant agreement, modify the uh overall timeline as well. So that that's been part of our conversation. The FRA is comfortable with us moving forward at this point and uh town staff is also comfortable with us moving forward at this point.

Okay. But as it stands, we are still under obligation of the a grant agreement with FRA that was approved in November. That's accurate. Yes. But with the understanding of those modifications that will occur, right? communication that we've received from them. Not the official grant agreement, but other communication.

Sure. It's going to, but it hasn't happened yet. So, the grant agreement, the amendment from November is still valid is what I'm hearing. Yes. Okay. So, in that amendment that we passed in November, uh, one of the items says, uh, and it's, um, critical milestone deadlines section 4.1 for anybody interested in digging it back up. Um, uh, let's see. the recipient. So, the town acknowledges um that US DOT may terminate the grant award, so the 16.1 million build grant award under um section 16.1A on some conditions related to the project's estimated schedule as listed in section 3.2. All right. What's the project's estimated schedule in 3.2 to that FRA could potentially um uh terminate our grant funds as a result of going to section 3.2. It says the uh let's see the planned construction start date is 101 of 25. So October 1st of 2025 or 90 days after the amendment one's execution uh whichever is later which both of those timelines have since passed and has not been met. Um plan construction a substantial completion date of 6127 which obviously tonight um that is clearly not a possible you know realistic thing and we're talking about an entire year later of June of 28. So how I see this and tell me I understand it's like we have comfortability. They say there's no issue. We believe them. Take them to their word. But this is an incredibly expensive and big project. And what I'm hearing from the town staff at this point is because we don't have an updated grant agreement amendment whatever updated agreement with FRA as a result of the budget. any timeline changes from November to now like we

were required to have back in November when at that time we had differences in uh budget and timeline from previously when we had uh gone through this cycle before that. We are still under an agreement technically and legally with FRA that we are in violation of but based on the um project timeline that they explicitly say they can terminate our grant agreement 16.1 million is the total that if we are you know based on some conditions related to us not meeting that timeline which clearly we have not already met. What am I missing here? Because that seems like a really big deal. I don't think you're missing anything in terms of the facts. The uh the conversations have been very positive with FRA. The um overall uh working with FRA, working with DOT has been very good on this project. We've modified this grant agreement several times. um the grant agreement even before it came to council back in I think 22 we've had uh numerous times where we've looked at um extending uh the timeline based on the approval process with unit Pacific so so so we have a history of working well with our partners at DOT FRA and I don't think this is any different

okay um I have a um second concern that's along similar lines I um where there's not not talking about the project itself specifically or my opinion thereof but just um questions. So, we approved back in November Milstone Weber and they we entered into a contract um with them or council authorized executing a contract with them um uh under the timeline that we were told and led to believe and everything else uh was mandated where the substantial completion had to be done by 2027. Um, as is outlined in our council packet tonight, um, that was a reason um, uh, why Milstone Weber withdrew their uh, bid for consideration was the feasibility of meeting that timeline, which I have to believe would be the case for any contractor at all. That the it just the June of 2027 timeline was too tight for anybody. after they based on the timeline you shared a little bit ago after Milstone Weber withdrew their bid from consideration in part based on the timeline. Then afterwards the timeline changed which could have logically made a difference in their ability given that that was one of the reasons it backed out of it in the first place but they were not re-engaged once the timeline changed. Is that understanding correct? And is there any risk to the town from Milstone Weber potentially because they backed out in part for a reason that after they backed out got changed but then they didn't get a chance to uh you know re you know re-engage on the contract that we had already approved up here.

That's correct. Well, that the the changes that um changed the schedule um came after uh changes to the temporary shoring, changes to schedule came after Milstone Weber uh withdrew their bid. And I would, you know, turn to Mr. Corsaga to Right. They withdrew their bid. So, they were no longer um um responsible bidder technically, but Mr. Kursa can talk about the legal legal aspects of that.

Sure. And as part of those discussions, we did offer that was there any circumstance under which they would consider uh going through the contract going through with the contract if we were to able to obtain extensions on project completion dates and they had indicated to us that no, they were not interested in in pursuing the project even with those changes offered. So given the circumstances and and Milstone Wilbur's withdrawal, I'm not concerned about any sort of blowback from then pivoting to PJ in the way that we did. Okay. All right. So we don't we are not town doesn't have there's not a legal risk or liability sitting out there as a result of how this process played out. I don't believe so. No.

Okay. All right. Well, I appreciate the uh information on that question. back to my first um I don't I mean personally I don't know how in good conscience anybody could like vote to go forward with a project that has $16.1 million tied to a federal grant that explicitly says in that grant agreement that we are legally under right now and we're taking the vote that says we acknowledge as the town that FRA um could uh uh eliminate our $16.1 million grant based on if you know conditions aren't met relative to a timeline that we already have missed and is like totally out the window and like that liability by itself even if people love the underpass you know like the project itself you know you want to bring it back at a time when FRA um an updated grant agreement which sounds like is in the works comes back to us I don't know how in good conscience with fiduciary responsibility that we all have up here we could enter the town into that kind of agreement and the potential liability that carries with it. So,

other discussion questions? Mr. Buyers, thanks. I think I had one one question um off the bat. Uh I think one of the one of the public commenters talked about like the kind of the early public input sessions on over under or none of the above. U could staff talk about kind of the the public engagement part of this process both from conception to kind of where we've gotten today and kind of how we've gotten here.

Wow. Um I might have to maybe pick Miss Davidson's brain if she remembers the timeline for that. There was a lot of planning, I think even before Mr. Otto joined the team here, a lot of planning that went into um an overpass discussion, but I just don't remember the timeline. And then public input was overwhelmingly rejecting an overpass and going to an underpass. Do you remember, Miss Davidson? I'm going to pick your brain. Yeah, I believe this was um when Doug Farre came back to town to do an update on the plan after it had been in place for maybe 15 years. Um so I want to say it was 2015ish. Um and there there was a public process to talk about how the plan had been implemented north of the tracks and then also what were going to be the next steps south of the tracks and this came up as an issue um that was discussed at length and um there were different alternatives proposed. Um, a lot of alter, pardon me, a lot of alternatives were evaluated. Um, once the determination to go under, uh, was done. Uh, we really did a pretty exhaustive evaluation of construction methods, processes. Uh we looked at everything from uh driven pipe culverts to bore and jack um to open cut to circular type arrangements that would allow maybe you know even a dual culvert was considered at one time although we didn't advance that very far. Um so a lot of lot of thought a lot of planning uh consideration and negotiation with Union Pacific Railroad was involved. So um the engineer WSP did a lot of uh evaluations both for constructibility, contractor availability, cost, timing, all those things went into the decision. Um and ultimately um the design that was selected was an open cut which was probably maybe the least likely to be

approved by Uni Pacific when we started this but as we went through it turned out um it was the least cost and probably less risk. um to be able to see the process, see the um see the boxes that went in versus boring and jacking, which would have meant we were trenching underneath a live track. Um so, a lot of lot of conversation, a lot of planning, and a lot of uh estimating went into the selection of the design that we ended up on.

Thanks. And and for context, I'm not uh trying to second guess whether we should have gone over or under. was just trying to understand like when we're talking about public engagement and a lot of people wanted the underpass. Just want to understand what that timeline was, which it sounds like that was almost 11 years ago, not invalidating that. We make a lot of long-term decisions here in the town of Normal. Um, but certainly we're, you know, making consequential decisions tonight and just want to kind of keep some of that history in mind. Um, I think maybe I'll I'll share some more general comments now. Um, and I'll start with one ad hoc comment and I hope that and all of my colleagues uh conversation tonight uh that we try to make it clear what our opinions are and what our facts are because I felt as a council member when we talked about this in November. There was some discussion of tableabling to give two more weeks to allow for more public feedback to emerge before making that final decision. And at least for me, just the way I felt, I felt that the way that conversation went is we were strongly led to believe that if we did not take the vote that night, we cannot afford to table two weeks or the project was going to die. Obviously, that's not the case tonight. And I just share that for all my colleagues. Again, whether you're for or against this, let's not let the the urgency blind us from having a fair discussion. And let's not try to persuade each other one way or another u with things that maybe are opinions, but not facts. just wanted to set that as the base. U so from from my view overall tonight uh this process started basically when I moved to the community I was a freshman at ISU in 2015 uh for for context and so I've kind of watched this process both as a citizen uh play out also as a eventually a candidate and you know now as a council person over these last three years and I remember as I started to get more involved in the town that one of the key selling points of the underpass was the fact that 90 plus percent of the

project was being funded by state and federal dollars. U and and I agreed with that concept. I mean, I remember going door to door during my campaign three years ago, people would say, "How do you feel about the underpass?" And I said, "Hey, I think it's a good project." And really, it's mostly being paid for by state and federal dollars. And I share this to say that the financial component of this project was always a key selling point in the town's pitch of this project to the community. So I have been a little bit surprised that in just broader discussions that the but the budget growing exponentially from the town share seems to be being minimized when one of the key components of this being presented to the community was that this is really being paid for by state and federal grants. U and I I would also again I want to be clear this is speculation. I don't know this to be true. Uh but given the continued delays in growing cost of this project from a just shy of a $3 million town share to a just shy of $15 million town share. I mean I would be very surprised if this overall budget holds in this project just given the complexities of the engineering and some of the delays we already faced. And overall I mean if there's a complicated project that's worth the investment, you got to hash it out and keep going. Uh, but I I think that in looking at this decision tonight, as I did in November, I want to see Uptown continue to grow. Uptown's the gem of our community. I think all of us up here hopefully, I think, agree on that. Um, but I think part of growing Uptown and all of Normal for the future require strategic financial planning and sometimes that means making bold investments that might cost a lot of money because we believe they're going to deliver value to the community. There's been some expensive investments made in Uptown to date that got Uptown to where it is today. Okay. And I think that those investments have have largely paid off. But sometimes it also means walking away when a project no longer makes sense and the facts have changed as in my opinion they have. I'm not opposed on principle to using debt as a tool to further develop uptown. Uh

there's been other projects and efforts where I've probably shared with my colleagues um my views on ways we could use public investment to continue developing uptown in other ways. Uh but fundamentally we don't need the underpass to continue the development of Uptown. Uh there's a difference between cost and value. While the project might cost $40 million, that doesn't mean we're delivering $40 million of value. Certain projects that may be the case if we're creating new structures or entities that are going to be have an assessed value and be on the tax roles, but for a project like this, I I don't think that those things are the same. And so at some point, we're going to need to invest large sums of money to further develop uptown South. Uh that's an effort that I'm I'm supportive of. Um so for my view, I think that the smart decision tonight is let's keep our arrows in the quiver um and save them for those future projects that for my view are going to deliver clear value for the community. Thanks.

Further questions or comments?

The other side of the table seems quiet. Do they not want to go? All right. Um, honestly, there was like a mic drop moment a few minutes ago. Mr. Preston, I think your comments are unbelievably scary that he pointed out that we are moving ahead without a reinfor grant agreement. and to use words like we feel comfortable and we're having positive conversation on a $42 million project given the fiduciary responsibility that we all have in this room. I don't I'm speechless, but I'll leave his comments where they were because I'm not sure I can say anything more about them. But I do want to go in a slightly different direction on some thoughts that I brought with me tonight. Um, I haven't heard a thank you yet, so I will offer it to the hundreds of residents in this community who sent us emails, wellthoughtout emails concerning this project, not wanting this project, skeptical, very skeptical. Maybe once for it, as Mr. buyers mentioned 10 years ago, but now through times that have changed postcoid, do we really need as much office space like we used to, changes in economy, all sorts of very relevant thoughts. So, thank you to the residents who have taken time out of their busy days to engage in this. And at the end of the day, we are a representative government here. So, listening and weighing the voices of the people we serve matters.

I also want to recognize the huge showing of our building trades and labor workers who are here today presumably in support understandably of a major project like this construction project. This is a career making project for you a resume building project. I was talking to uh one of the operating engineers earlier today and to work on a railroad to work on a river. I mean those are like cool projects to have in your profession. So, I understand your interest in this and I appreciate it. I'd love to see, and I remember saying this or something like this back in November, I'd love to see us be able to invest in many more worthwhile projects for our building trades laborers, but we are going to leverage ourselves so much. And here's the problem. We are going to leverage ourselves so much. I know we can chew gum and walk at the same time, but this is a $42 million project that we're not even sure has a valid grant agreement when we could be investing in other transportational projects, much neededed housing projects, and oh by the way, to a nod to another group of union members here, normal firefighters 2442, some core public safety needs. And I find it rather interesting on the same night about an hour and a half ago that we lauded justifiably a whole crew, a whole unit of our firefighters for their bravery and then an hour and a half later are essentially sidelining them and saying, "No, we we won't be able to buy you that new ladder truck because of this underpass.

I believe that came from people within the fire department management. So, I don't want that opportunity cost lost tonight. So, riddle me this, as I put out earlier this week, riddle me this. Why do we spend a decade chasing federal and state dollars for what is arguably an unnecessary project and raising local taxes to boot, yet not show the same urgency in pursuing staffing, equipment, and resources for our fire department to keep up with their demand. At some point, this raises serious questions about whether leadership is focused on the right priorities. We're quick to celebrate bravery after the fact. The harder question is whether leadership is willing to prioritize the investments before the next emergency. We're taking a massive loan out to make an addition onto the house. One of our commenters said something about bringing it to a household analogy. It's like we're taking an a loan out to put an addition on the house while the foundation itself, our fire and EMS system is starting to crack. This tonight is all about priorities.

Thanks, Mayor. Um, just so I'm clear, we're still talking about number seven about the bond. We're talking about all. You want us to talk about everything? Okay. Talking about everything.

I'm supporting a bond. Just so that's clear and and then we cover that. Um, uh, I guess, uh, I don't have a I have a few talking points. I don't have a speech. Um, I guess I want to start off by, um, thanking everybody who's emailed, called, uh, asked to meet with me in person. Um, I've been able to respond to some, not to all. Um, but I appreciate, uh, hearing from everybody, no matter what your view or what you think I should be doing up here tonight, is it all helps me to be smarter about what I'm doing up here representing. um a couple of misconceptions that I've heard um along the way I think it's important that we address because I've heard some of them a few of them multiple times and so I want to address just a few of them when I think uh we heard Miss Reese I think you spoke that um we cannot use the funding for the underpass and just migrated to other things around the town. can't take underpass funds and and build fire stations or police stations or any other stations. Th those funds are specific to this project and we can't uh just divert them to other things. Um also um I I heard from a few people about an accurate crossing. Somebody mentioned it earlier that that is not an option. Uh that's actually originally how this whole conversation started is that I believe please correct me if I'm wrong I get lost in the agencies. Uh but the railroad and the ICC told us we had to close our at grade crossing like immediately and then despite our appeals to um have an at grade crossing which I think would be everybody's preference and we wouldn't even be having this conversation but we were denied that

ability to do that. Uh a few people have have suggested that we just do that but that is actually not an option for the town. Um I got the agencies right correctly I hope. Um uh also I just want to make sure that I understand um the conversation with um the grant uh the FRA about the build grant. Um, I'm going to paraphrase, so feel free to jump in and correct if I get this wrong, but I want to make sure that I'm understanding it. Are you telling us essentially that um what's making this feasible uh is that the the dollars have to be spent by September of 27, but the project doesn't have to be completed by that date? That's a clarification from FRA.

That's correct. Okay. Part two of that is that these are my words, correct me if I miss this, but um we can use uh the build grant as first dollars. We can spend those upfront and then our match and everything else can be spent later and that helps us make sure that we utilize the build grant dollars within the time project timeline. Is that an accurate statement? That's also accurate. Yes. Okay. So those are the things those two things are new wrinkles that at least I didn't hear them in November that this is this is something new. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And that is part of the conversation.

Yes, that's part of the conversation we had with DOT. Absolutely.

Okay. All right. Um thank you. Uh I just wanted to to to clarify I guess um again I don't have a long speech. Um for me the the purposes of this project are still the same. they they haven't changed. Um I won't we've talked about those. I won't you know public safety, accessibility, and economic development. Um uh there's certainly um uh some conversations since November. I've had one conversation with with more developers on the economic development side lending credence to that that um us doing the underpass is a critical factor in their decision-making process of of wanting to do projects on the south side. Uh for me that leads credence to that this is in in fact a a good and important economic development process or project rather. Um and and the things that haven't changed are important for me here. Um, effectively we're changing contractors. The cost to the taxpayers, the net cost to the taxpayers has not changed since November. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. With all of the changes in utilities and construction costs and increased grants, it's a wash.

Correct. We have we have not increased the town's contribution beyond what was disclosed in November. Okay. And the debt will be the same as we discussed back in November. Correct. Okay. So, effectively we're changing contractors effectively. Yes. Okay. In addition to adding the two and a half million in local project funding from

and some additional costs. Okay. Um and so thank you. I just try to boil this down to uh some things that I think are are important at least in my mind anyway. Um, one of the bigger things that is important to me is um, and I I'm not sure who said this earlier. It might have been one of the speakers that said um, that this is a better project now. And I happen to agree with that. Um, PJ here is a local firm and uh, I I wish there was a different process for them being in this position now sooner. Uh, I wish it didn't. But uh for me, I'm happy that we're landing where we are with PJ hair. Uh this is local dollars and dollars our tax dollars uh coming back from the federal government and back from the state of Illinois. Money that is currently outside coming to a local business that's employs local people to support local jobs. To me, that's a big difference here. And why I'm even more supportive of this project is because it is funding local people. and and that for me is is a an important change. Um there's other uh more detailed comments, but I'll save that if we're doing second rounds or further discussion. Thanks, Mayor. Let me weigh in on a c a couple of things here since I've been along for the ride since before the beginning on that. When we first started uh talking about this uh I was in the camp of we can ma we can manage and build a very safe at grade crossing to address this issue. uh as the more I got involved in the project and the more I've become involved in in railroad uh through my

Amtrak experience uh that is completely an untenable solution. uh with the double tracking that we have on our train tracks, uh we have two tracks coming through. The increases in freights that we've got, uh the increase in in passenger rail that we're seeing, and we may see more passenger rail coming from that, that is just uh not a viable scenario. So early in the day, the FRA said you have to do an overpass or an underbass. You have to do that. And so we went through the process of of seeing what what was going to work. We actually even had a false start on building an overpass and given the amount of people and the type of people that would use that, I think we made a very shrewd decision to not build that overpass. It would not have it would not have functioned well at all. But uh that still lingers in my head that the fed uh FRA and DOT has said you will have an underpass or an overpass. We chose the underpass and that's what we're moving on. And we've had more delays on this. I agree. I some some of the luck that we've had on this whether it's changes of administration, whether it's the recession, whether it was COVID. Uh I I could probably every possible uh obstruction you could get on a project like that and we probably have had most of them. So, it really does get back to that basic safety issue that we have to deal with. Now, we had a scenario and I think you're all aware of that because of the increased freight traffic and the passenger traffic. We had ISU students crawling through live freights to get

from their housing to class or from class to housing and it's an unbelievable scenario to have that happen. So part of our ability is to provide a safe pathway giving them an option giving people an option to to cross those tracks um safely to go under the tracks in this case. You know my experience in Amtrak I I am just stunned at the number of fatalities that happen around this country uh with pedestrians being hit by either freight trains or or passenger trains. of the safety issue. We cannot understate that. So this is a lot of the thinking that we had as we went forward with this project. And then we look about what we were going to do with that project. We were not just building a a safety amenity. We decided we could leverage that into economic development and uh quality of life issues. the two uh in quality of life, you have the two amphitheaters that are going to be used on either side of the underpass project, which is increasing opportunities for for outdoor events, for kids, for day camps, for musical events. Um, and just it kind of goes along with what we tried to do in the uptown area to make make it a vibrant, lively place that people want to be. And to piggyback a bit little bit on what um Mr. McCarthy said, I have talked to two developers who are interested in doing something in the south of the tracks and both of them said their projects would not fly without that underpass. They felt that they needed that connection to

the existing uptown area uh to benefit the projects that they were doing. And so we have seen this probably over the last three or four years. Uh not I won't say consistently but people have come to look at at development on the south side of the tracks and pretty much everyone has said for us to have development that we want to do. They're them saying that not what the town wants to do but what they wanted to do uh needed that underpass. Um if you'll recall U Nick Duffel gave us some pretty interesting uh initial economic development outcomes uh in terms of uh the construction that would be done, the the salaries that would be paid to local labor and that was brought up earlier. uh u materials being purchased locally uh is a huge economic benefit. And then we have projects that could be residential, they could be commercial. Improving the tax roles, uh improved tax roles benefit the schools more than anybody, but we know how important schools are to our community. So, I think there are a lot of pieces here that that make this make this a well-rounded, well thoughtout project. Often when you do projects like this, it's up to the government to do the basic infrastructure to to to say this is what our community wants. This is what we want to do in our community and we're showing our position by by allocating the money for infrastructure improvement to leverage private development in our community. We've done that in Uptown on almost

every project. We've been the the starter on it, whether it was building the Children's Museum as an example, all the infrastructure work and road realignment we did in Uptown to show people we're committed as a community for you, Mr. Developer, to come into our community and develop. So, there's a lot of positives here. Uh is any project completely risk-free? No. But I think our staff has the experience and I think a number of us on council have had enough experience that we're aware of those issues and we're watchful of those issues. Is there risk? Of course there's risk. Um I can't imagine a project of any size that you could do and say I'm going to do this project. It's a risk-free. That just doesn't happen. But we're measuring the risk and our ability to deal with that. Um, with the incredible planning that you've done financially and engineering that this project is is a sound project in my mind and I see it going forward. Um I I just wanted to in my second goround uh first of all thank everybody who did write and those who are here tonight. Um I had an opportunity to plow through emails last night for several hours and respond. Um and my apologies. I know I made it through the May, April, and March emails that I had flagged related to the underpass and I did not go any further because it was close to 10:30 at that point. Um and uh I had created a response that was addressing some of the misconceptions I

was encountering. And um and for me the overwhelming feedback that I was getting is that the project is just too expensive. And uh I want to share that the Chamber of Commerce in recent years, at least I've been a part of it, has taken these road trips to communities in other states, um that bear some resemblance to the town of Normal and Bloomington as Twin Cities or or it's a college town. And what they're seeking to do is have local business and government leaders be exposed to some of the other practices in other communities where these communities are creating what they call transformational projects that sets that community apart and and attracts new residents, maybe attracts new businesses. One trip that stands out in my mind is we went to Holland and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Um where in Holland they had diverted a hot water that was a byproduct of one of the productions and run it underneath the sidewalks and streets um so that there was no need for snow removal. It was automatically melted. Um and in Grand Rapids, there was someone who took us on a tour of buildings that he was involved with developing. Um, but in both cases, those communities had uh donors with deep pockets who were willing to to make that commitment. And while we have very generous people here in our communities, the scale of this kind of project isn't one that would be taken on by a single individual. Uh and so when we're talking about a public private partnership, Normal is making the commitment to

creating a project that would then make it more conducive to have developers come in with retail or residential, not office. We dodged the bullet with COVID when um the plans that would have had uh some large buildings with primarily office space did not get built because we've seen things change where with working remotely and so forth. We're fortunate that the emphasis is on retail first level and residential on upper upper levels. Um, so there I believe strongly that we have interest in in this location. And as far as creating additional tax burden, we're not talking about expending our property lines beyond Normal's borders. We're talking about developing in a central core area that already has utilities, that has water, that has sewage service, that has storm water. Uh and yes, we would be adding people using it, but we would also be adding their tax tax dollars to the ROS. Um and and so it would have the benefit of increasing the tax base without a a disproportionate burden of additional expense, which we don't have in the underpass any kind of facility that has ongoing operational expenses. we don't have to worry about bringing shows in and seeing if the revenues that those shows generate is enough to cover the bond issues. Um, and as far as is this a reasonable projection to use entertainment taxes as the funding mechanism, recall when um talking with Mr. Yun about the the

rationale for the 0.25 25 increase in the beverage tax and the 2% increase in the hotel motel. It was projected to um adequately provide for the ongoing debt service of these $12 million bond issue that we have targeted. And as far as whether or not entertainment dollars are questionable, Blooming Normal and ISU, ISU has dodged the bullet in terms of the enrollment cliff despite the fact that 18 years ago population was declining and we have fewer college aid students at this point. ISU has increased their enrollment and they're they have a new engineering college that would is intended to attract more residents to their campus. And I can tell you from working as a volunteer at a movein um event at ISU that if we're we are predominantly attracting Chicago families and for the Chicago family um who are used to Chicago prices I remember suggesting to them they said we don't know where to park and I said well the the garage is right there it's only $8. They go oh we don't want to pay that an hour. I says that's $8 a day. Oh, so again, you know, the mindset of the market we're reaching may not be phased by this as some people fear. Um, and the the arts and music festivals we've had it. I don't know if Miss Wisman is here, um, but I don't know how long we've been doing the Sugar Creeks Arts Festival and the Make Music normal. Um, have they been going on? um earlier than 2015

and and I understand you're turning away applicants to participate in the Sugar Creeks Arts Festival. So, we've got more people wanting to come and be a part of that than we have space for. And this would provide the opportunity for that festival to to overflow south of the tracks. So, we can be a destination. Um, and as Mr. McCarthy was pointing out, the conversations with the FRA are about the timing of the dollars. In government accounting is very specific. Part of the problem we had last fall is the understanding was that those dollars would go out last. Now, we have a commitment and and an understanding that we can spend those dollars upfront and and while um Mr. Preston makes a point that it could be nerve-wracking that we don't have that formalized in the agreement. We are also working under the same administration when we complete this project in 2028 as opposed to last year or part of the reason we ran into the issue of needing to re negotiate. there was a change in administration in DC where we were concerned about the timing and getting that into that federal that FRA agreement. Um, and I just want to emphasize when we came to council in November of last year, we were dealing with the information that we had at that time. Everybody can be a Monday morning quarterback. you know, looking back now of the the concessions that we've received and the other information, yes, it's a different picture, but the amount

that Normal is committing towards this is not changed. And I'm very in favor of this for the the accessibility issue. Um, some of you may know my daughter is special needs. Uh well I she doesn't have any mobility issues except she travels at two speeds slow and stop. Um but beyond that I got a taste of what it's like to have mobility issues when I had both of my knees replaced and was dependent on a walker for a time and walking across railroad tracks. you can run the risk of putting them down in the wrong place at one time and falling and and I couldn't have gotten up right after I was recovering. So, I understand that and I feel strongly that this underpass will allow anybody to go from one side of the tracks to the other without requiring a tram or some special accommodation. And because it will no longer be a separate but equal. It will be able-bodied and everybody who who is thankfully with their full faculties and mobility can use the same pathway to get from north to south. And I am in favor of this for all of those reasons. And I hope the conversation tonight has clarified some of the things that people were writing to me about that weren't necessarily accurate. And and I thank you all for your participation in the process.

That's it. Mr. Preston,

I'm going to uh go back to where my comments um left off earlier and make sure that we're all saying the same thing on part of this dynamic and then um hit into what I see as the foundational issue. Um, regardless of what you think about the underpass, if you love it or you hate it or anywhere in between, I mean, we all up here know where each other stands on the underpass. We've been talking about it uh publicly for a decade now. I don't think there's any surprise when people think about the underpass as a project itself. That has to come, that conversation, as I see it, has to come after this foundational issue that I brought up uh earlier. And so, I want to start Mr. McCarthy and then Miss Smith referenced um the uh FRA conversations. Staff uses the term in our packet um and it was u mentioned I believe earlier uh that FRA clarified the timeline and I seems like the word clarified or clarifying is potentially could be misleading in terms of how it's construed. There is no ambiguity in the timeline as it was in November and the process that they would be paying after as reimbursement. There was a substantial change in that process of the grant funds getting paid out to us which is that we can now spend those dollars first rather than as reimbursement after the entire underpass is substantially complete. So clarifying there was no ambiguity. It was a change in policy from the FRA of when the money can be spent which then allowed us to adjust our timeline of the project because we weren't required to have it substantially complete, the whole underpass substantially complete by no later than uh September 1st of 27. That allowed us then the additional room for this thing to actually get built. Hence

where we are today. But the word clarifying is misused and you're welcome. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong on my assessment of that piece. No, they did clarify that we can use build grant dollars up front and previously it was reimbursed after the fact substantial completion of the project by 9127. Substantial completion by 9:3027. Yes. Yes.

Okay. All right. So that change existed. All right. Now, we are under grant agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration for the 16.1 million grant that we got from them that says explicitly um the town acknowledges that US DO may terminate this grant, this award, so that 16.1 million under section 16.1A on some conditions related to the project's estimated schedule as listed on section 3.2. All right. What's the project's estimated schedule on section 3.2? It is planned construction start date of October 1st of 25 or 90 days after the execution. Both of which have already passed. So we are clearly in violation of that as it is because they're behind us. Next on item 3.2 timeline plan construction substantial completion date June 1st of 27. We know that's not possible. That date hasn't come yet. So, we can't prove it. It won't be done technically. But like clearly that is um one that we would be in violation of once that date comes. And then to the point about the FRA clarification, them changing their policy of how when they give the funds, we are under agreement currently that their planned revenue service date, so when they pay out the money is September 1st of 27 after the substantial completion of the project. We are in violation of the timeline and there's an explicit thing that says um uh we acknowledge they may terminate the award um uh if let's see may terminate the award under some conditions related to this project's timeline. Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse in it. I just I don't even know like if we're

able to take this vote tonight um from a judiciary stand like standpoint and I know that we're not anticipating FRA to terminate the agreement but this is not something that like a handshake and some casual conversations uh is sufficient when we're talking $16.1 million that should we go forward with contract with PJ hair we you know we have the liability out there, the exposure FRA could pull the money and then what then you're coming back to council and saying, "Well, we need another 16.1 locally because FRA pulled it and we knew they could and they had grounds to do so and they did." I don't anticipate that happening, but nonetheless, technically that risk still exists. And so, regardless of the project, what you think about it, the pros, the con, you know, that conversation is warranted. It's happened. Maybe it's not warranted. It's happened so many times. I think we all know where we're at, but this foundational piece has to get figured out first in my mind. And I don't know how I'm looking over like I don't know how anybody up here could put the town in that kind of um position with that kind of exposure. That's what I got. Further discussions? So, uh, we're going to take these votes in order. Um, the first one we had a mo did we have motion? We did on ordinance mending uh, ordinance 6039 and ordinance 6040 to extend the date for sale of bonds by the town of Normal. Please call the role.

Miss Lauren, no. Mr. Buyers, no. Mr. Roberge. Hi. Miss Smith. I. Mr. McCarthy. Hi. Mr. Preston. No. Mayor Cous. I. That ordinance is approved. Uh item eight is a resolution authorizing the execution of a joint funding agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation for phase three construction engineering services for the UnderTown. I'm sorry, the underpass at Uptown Station project. Motion for approval. So moved. Second. Please call the RO.

Mr. Buyers. No. Mr. Roberge. I. Miss Smith. I. Mr. McCarthy. I. Mr. Preston. No. Miss Lorenz. No. Mayor Cous. I. That item is approved. Item nine is a resolution authorizing an amendment with the Lumen Technologies Incorporated to relocate telecommunication facilities for the construction of the UN underpass project at Uptown Station. Move approval. Second. Please call the RO. Mr. Over I. Miss Smith. I. Mr. McCarthy. I

Mr. Preston. No. Miss Loren, no. Mr. Buyers, no. Mayor Cous, I that resolution is approved. And item 10 is a resolution to award a contract to PJ Hair Incorporated for construction of the underpass at Uptown Station project in the amount of 33,867,447.

Move for approval. Second. Please call the RO. Miss Smith, I Mr. McCarthy, I Mr. Preston, no. Miss Lorenz, no. Mr. Buyers, no. Mr. Roberge, I mayor Cous I. That resolution is approved. That concludes our general orders business. We have one item of uh new business and that is ordinance establishing a moratorum on data center facilities. approval. Second discussion on this item. Go ahead, Mr. Buyers.

I had a couple questions for staff. I saw M.

I was I was just going to Thank you, Mr. Buyers. I was just going to explain to council this is basically a proactive move. Um, data centers have been getting a lot of attention just as a topic, a land use topic. Um, we've heard both sides of the position from public commenters this evening. It's been in local media and national media. Um so staff wanted to get ahead of this issue and we are suggesting that a um moratorum for up to six months gives us time to determine appropriate land use regulations and come back to council with recommendations and would would go through the process with public input and through the planning commission process for an appropriate uh appropriate regulations uh associated with data center installations in our community. Mr. Buyers.

Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, M. Ree. Just a couple of questions. Appreciate this is something that we're looking at from a proactive perspective. Um, so first question. So, based off communications I got, as I understand, we haven't actually been approached about any projects at this point. Is that fair to say? We've received no applications or any kind of land use request. We've received lots of questions from residents and and I don't know potentially developers don't know who but people have called and asked if we have resol uh regulations.

Right. Can you help me understand as is today one what would like without a mortorium and without going into presumably drafting some sort of regulations or ordinances as it stands today if we didn't do this one what would the process be today if a developer came forward and say hey I want to develop a data center what would that look like today and two what is the intention during this moratorum period of what what is our goal of what that would look like after that moratorum period like what process do we have today and what's the process that we're trying to train change and create during this moratorum period. Well, I answered the second part first and then your first part about uh what the process would be. I will sounds like a perfect uh question to defer to corporation council. But the second part of your question in terms of the outcome of what this what to expect at the end of the moratorum is I it's yet to be determined what the process should look like. Should uh data centers require site plan approvals, special uses, you know, all those kind of land use regulations will be determined. Um, Mr. Kursa.

Sure. And and as to the first part, what would a data center application look like if it came in today without any action? Uh, we would try to shoehorn it into the uses that we have uh currently in our code, which obviously wouldn't be up to the task for many of the items that, you know, cause a lot of consternation. So there would be an attempt to regulate it through what we've got already, but I think there would be some shortcomings to that.

Okay. So, it would be fair to say whether this is something that in a future we were to support a project or not support a project, a hypothetical project that would come forward, would it be reasonably fair to say today that right now we don't actually even have a process in place to consider a project? Um, and that regardless of what path we might want to go, u we want to create a process that at least creates clear guidelines across the board. Is that that fair? Yes, I think that's a fair statement in terms of making sure we have a fair process that people understand and we're treating um that that use similarly if we get multiple requests. Okay. Thank you. Further on side.

Yeah. I was just wondering if you could um reconcile what we're doing tonight and why this got brought to us with um some comments that you made in the media, Mr. mayor um about um data centers. The article was titled Bloomington's data center hot topic is hoham in normal and you were this was from May 6th. Uh hom was not my word that was their word.

Okay, true. But you were quoted u throughout and seemed to indicate that um this was not going to be really much of an issue and um that in fact you didn't see where we even had the land for such a data center. So why would anybody really be coming to normal? So can you explain what what has changed in your thinking that you brought this forward? And then secondly, and this may be more for well for either you or Miss Ree um you know Bloomington has held a couple of town halls. To what level of transparency will you bring the discussion during this moratorum?

Well um the fir the first question is my opinion hasn't changed. I've always been about due diligence on on how we go forward. This is an issue that is divisive with the public currently and I think we needed to be fact-based and grounded in our decision making whether it's for data centers or against data center or for this data center and not that data center. These are all things that we're taking a look at as part of this moratorum so that we have a better understanding of what we're doing um to one encourage economic development in our community but also protect our citizens in our community. So that's kind of where my position has always been on this

and to the second question. The second question was um I told Miss Ree to go ahead and put that on the uh on the agenda going forward because we would discuss it tonight. That's not the question. What what would be going what will we do during this moratorum to ensure transparency?

Well, um ultimately I I don't know exactly I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do tomorrow or next week on this topic. We have gathered a lot of information already from Illinois municipalities that have adopted regulations. Um we have re we have gathered information from the National League of Cities and other sources planning uh professional associations in terms of what to consider for data center uses when you're establishing regulations. So we'll start with that gathering information. Then um ultimately the process for all sorts of land use regulations goes through the planning commission where the planning commission will hold public hearings, public comment, get feedback. Between now and then, I'm sure we we will seek to gather information and find out what others in the community think. We've already received uh over the weekend, council received an email and um some some offering to assist with information gathering and public um education about data center use from the Chamber of Commerce. So, we know there are community members and agencies that have an interest in exploring this topic. So, we'll find out what they have to say and we'll share this information as as appropriate. And I would add to that that that's always been our process on on new ideas and projects that come to the community. We've got quite a reputation for being transparent and being as open as we can possibly be.

Thank you very much. Further on this item, please call the RO. Mr. McCarthy. Hi. Mr. Preston. Hi, Miss Loren. I Mr. Buyers. Hi, Mr. Roberge. I Miss Smith. I mayor Cuse. I that resolution is or that ordinance is approved. We have one public commenter. Uh, Lisa Edington. Again, Miss Edington, just state your name for the record.

My name is Lisa Edington and I live on Northtown Road and I have an open letter to the council from members of Northtown Road that I wanted to come and share in person. We urge the council to immediately enforce existing law or enact an ordinance addressing dangerous and excessively noisy motorcycle group riding on city streets.

Large groups ride at high speeds, ignore traffic signals and stop signs, and block intersections so other riders can proceed illegally. This behavior endangers everyone on the road. While motorcyclists accept personal risk, their actions also threaten car motorists. High-speed motorcycles are less visible, can maneuver unpredictably, and create serious hazards if a rider loses control. Crashes cause broad financial, legal, medical, and emotional impacts for all involved. These groups also create significant noise issues. Rides often include 20 or more motorcycles, many with excessively loud exhaust and high RPM acceleration. Existing state and federal noise regulations for motorcycles are routinely violated, including Illinois requirements for non-modified mufflers and compliance with federal noise emission standards. Northtown Railroad is on the main route that this group of motorcyclists take on a very frequent basis, usually more than once a week. It's very easy to see where they go. They come north on Lynen Street. They run the light at Lynen and Rab. They come to Northtown Road and they hit the corner running. By the time they get in front of my house, they're usually 50, 60, 70, 80 miles an hour in large groups and very loud. They take up the whole road. They take up both sides of the road. You've seen them popping wheelies on Veterans Parkway on a routine basis. They've gone down my streeten of a mile popping a wheelie. Something needs to be done about this. It's summer. It's the time for riding. And I used to have my motorcycle license. And I quit riding because I didn't want to take the personal risk anymore of motorists not seeing me. So, it's not about the motorcycles, it's about the noise, and it's about the large groups and the safety. This letter I have, I will be emailing to the council members tomorrow, and it's signed by nine out of the 10 residents

that live on Northtown Road. We just ask for some consideration and some thought. Thank you. Before taking a motion for German council concerns, Miss Smith.

Uh yes. On the agenda tonight, there were um the naming of the Harmon Arts Grant recipients. I am pleased to see that Seedling Theater and Penguin Project, both theater groups that cater to PE persons with special needs, um were recipients and I'm grateful that they participated in the process and thankful that they did receive that award um in the veterans column that is usually printed now on Tuesdays. Previously, there was a summation or a listing of ceremonies over the weekend to honor the the true reason for the holiday, including a need for volunteers to come to I believe it's Evergreen Cemetery to distribute ree. Um, and if you I'm hoping that they'll put the calendar and list some of those things um for anyone who's interested. And finally, on a lighter note, um the Corn Crib is hosting a team called Chicago Snowbirds on um 523 and 524. And I've followed the stories about this in the Chicago Tribune. If you aren't familiar with them, think of the Harlem Globe Troters playing baseball. Um it it should be quite entertaining. Uh so if you don't have any plans for the evening of 523 or the matinea of 524, I encourage you to check out them at the corn crib. Thank you,

Mr. Ken.

Thanks. I want to actually focus my comments um in response to uh Miss Eddington who came uh for the public comment here at the end and just say thank you to you and your neighbors um for uh coming and making that point and uh making your voices heard on it. So, I live what I was just pulling up my map to kind of eye it. Probably like a third of the mile uh behind your guys's house is in Ironwood. And there are times when I am in my house and it sounds like this herd of motorcycles, which I have my motorcycle license. I've got a bike. It's doesn't go above about 70 typically. It's an old 1981. So, nothing against that, but like a herd of motorcycles, it sounds like they're in my front yard. And I can only imagine what it is for you guys. not to mention the even bigger concern of safety um beyond just the noise. So I uh I certainly want to vouch for that and I would ask um NPD to consider uh looking at um enforcement and um adding this into the routine um a little more frequently maybe than uh anticipating to try and address this because you're exactly right and the the safety concerns um alone uh certainly warrant it but on the noise um I can I can certainly vouch for that too and I appreciate you and your neighbors. Please pass along to them. Uh thanks for coming and bringing this up.

Motion forj. So moved. Second. Second. Please call the role. Mr. Preston, I miss Lauren. I Mr. Buyers. Hi. Mr. Roberge. Hi. Miss Smith. I Mr. McCarthy. Hi. Mayor Cuse. Hi. We are ajourned. I am.