Skip to content

An Attentive Municipal Organization that Connects with Community, Commerce, and Nature.

Committee of the Whole Minutes

Monday, June 6, 2022

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Village Board meeting was conducted live remotely
via telecommunications.

Mayor Gaffino called the meeting to order.

In attendance: Mayor Mark Gaffino, Trustee Mark Carroll, Trustee Mike Lowery, Trustee Todd Niedzwiedz, Trustee Carolyn Salazar

Staff in attendance: Village Administrator Steve Bosco, Finance Director Jason Paprocki, Community & Economic Development Director Mike Toth, Village Attorney Kevin Drendel, Public Works Director John Laskowski, Police Chief Dave Fisher.



1. Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 5.12 Electronic Amusements Devices and Section 5.8.340 Liquor Code Classifications

Administrator Bosco explained that the Village currently requires establishments that have Electronic Amusement Devices to pay an annual fee for the use of the devices. Staff cited that the code is often confusing and not business friendly. The definition for an Electronic Amusement Device is “any electric device utilizing a television-like screen which, upon insertion of a coin, slug, token plate or disk or by payment of any other consideration may be operated by the public generally as a game, entertainment or amusement, whether or not registering a score.” Bosco gave an example, an arcade game qualifies as an electronic amusement device while a claw game did not.
Bosco stated that there are three businesses in the Village that operate a device under the definition and generate approximately $1,425 annually, rendering the time and effort to enforce the code not cost effective.
Staff was suggesting to eliminate the registration and fees associated with the electronic amusement devices that are not video gaming terminals and only register and assess video gaming terminals moving forward. This would apply to businesses that have up to ten electronic amusement devices.
Currently the village charges businesses a supplemental video gaming license fee of $500 which includes $25 per video gaming machine, up to six machines. The State has recently passed a Bill allowing municipalities to charge up to $250 per video gaming machine.
Staff was proposing to amend the current code to reflect the elimination of Electronic Amusement Devices in its entirety as well as changing code to implement an additional registration fee of each video gaming terminal at a cost of $250 per machine.
Mayor Gaffino and Trustee Lowery expressed approval of the changes.
Trustee Niedzwiedz asked when the changes would take effect. Administrator Bosco stated that it could take effect as soon as the changes are approved or the Village could set a date, he suggested coinciding with the Liquor License renewal date of March 1.
There was discussion about prorating the registration fees for the video gaming terminals if they were to be implemented immediately for new applicants and then on March 1 for existing licensees. Bosco stated that the registration fees are associated with the Supplemental Liquor Licenses and the Village does not typically prorate supplement licenses.
Trustee Carroll asked how much revenue was currently generated by video gaming for the Village. Director Paprocki stated that it was a total of approximately $120,000, the number varies by establishment. He said that some businesses are as low as $5,000 while others are $40,000. There was discussion in regard to how the revenue from video gaming is broken down and what amount the Village receives from associated taxes.
There was additional discussion regarding prorating the licensing fee for the video gaming terminals, the Trustees were in support of implementing the licensing fee but would like to allow the fee to be prorated in the event a Supplemental Video Gaming License is approved mid-year.
The Board was in favor of removing the Electronic Amusement Device registration fee as well as implementing a $250 per video gaming terminal registration fee in conjunction with the annual license renewal, with the capability of prorating the fee if necessary.
2. Petition #22-03; Park 88 Logistics Center

Administrator Bosco stated that Park 88 Logistics Center was a proposed industrial warehouse complex located between Smoke Tree Plaza and Sullivan Road east of Evergreen Drive. Bosco said that the item had gone before the Plan Commission and that staff was looking for feedback form the Board.
Director Toth stated that a previous development for the same site had gone before the Village Board last year. He introduced the developer Phelan Development.
Jess Knigge, with Phelan Development was on hand to present the project to the Board. He stated that they are not affiliated with the previous developer interested in the property but they had spent time working on solutions to the issues the previous developer had run in to, specifically the ingress and egress issues of truck traffic for the facility.
The proposed development is two buildings totaling 430,000 square feet. The developer stated that they have taken care to mitigate any negative impact to surrounding properties. They have been talking with a number of adjacent property owners and have purchase agreements with some for parcels.
The plan consists of two buildings. Building A would be a 36 foot high, 263,000 square foot facility. This would be set up with two unique customer storefronts with a planned third potential office in the center if necessary. Building B is planned to be 166,000 square foot facility, 32 foot height. That building is planned to accommodate four customer storefronts.
The truck traffic and loading bays would be at the center of the site, while car traffic will be on the outer ring of the buildings.
Truck traffic can egress north of the facility on to Smoke Tree Plaza and out to Route 31.
The developer was working with the City of Aurora to implement changes to Sullivan in order to facilitate ingress and egress of truck traffic along Sullivan Road. The developer was awaiting a decision from the City of Aurora at the time of the presentation.
The developer presented the proposed elevations of the buildings as well as landscaping.
Mr. Knigge, spoke about the proposed changes to Sullivan Drive, as well as the redevelopment of Fairview Road. It would be reconstructed directly to the east of its current location, it would be made a private road with access to the properties adjacent to it.
Director Toth stated that there were four items for consideration pertaining to the development. The Map Amendment to rezone the property, Special Use to establish the property as a Planned Unit Development, the Subdivision Plan and the Site Plan Approval.
The property was currently zoned for Estate Rural, B-2 General Business and Office, Research, Industrial. It had previously been zoned Agricultural but in 2013 that was removed. The developer was seeking to establish O-R-I district zoning.
The developer seeks a Special Use-Planned Unit Development with deviations due to the width of the access point at Sullivan and Fairview. The requirement is 150 feet and the planned width is 115 feet.
Director Toth spoke about the conditions the developer would have to meet for approval. These conditions were developed based on experience with other developments within the Village. The intention was to develop a list of conditions that would mitigate impact on surrounding properties.
The Plat of Subdivision was requested to consolidate eight lots in to one.
Toth stated that with the development being a new industrial development it is required to go through site plan approval.
Director Toth stated that the Plan Commission gave positive recommendation for the project in May. He stated that there were a couple of residents on hand for the Public Hearing that expressed concern with the access point off of Sullivan. Toth stated that their concerns would be passed along to the City of Aurora.
Trustee Lowery expressed positivity for the proposed project.
Mayor Gaffino had positive feedback for the facility but expressed concern and asked about truck traffic. Javier Millan with KLOA Inc. who conducted the traffic study spoke about the truck traffic and how it is generated during off-peak hours. He also mentioned that trucks may travel through the Orchard Road and I-88 interchange rather than the Route 31 and I-88 exit, offering truck traffic an alternate route west of the facility. Mr. Millan stated that there would be 260 estimated daily truck trips to and from the proposed facility.
There was further discussion in regard to the ingress and egress of truck traffic, including the use of Evergreen to the west of the facility.
Trustees Niedzwiedz and Salazar expressed positive feedback for the development.
3. Fox Valley Park District Lippold Park Pavilion

Director Toth stated that Lippold Park, which is owned and operated by the Fox Valley Park District, was annexed in to the Village in 2019. It is classified as an Estate Rural Residence district.
The Park District was seeking to construct a seasonal shelter with restrooms in Lippold Park which meets the zoning requirements, however a well and septic system would need to be installed because there are no connections to the Village water supply system of sanitary sewer system within reasonable access to Lippold Park. The Village Code states that anyone developing within the Village is required to utilize Village water and sanitary.
Trustee Carroll asked if there were any future plans between Red Oak Nature Center and Lippold Park that may give cause to extend the Village water and sewer system that far. Director Toth stated that Red Oak is also serviced by a well and septic system.
Toth stated that there is no clear path addressed in the municipal code on how to handle a situation in which there is no reasonable access to Village water or sewer lines. He also stated in the situation presented, it was not a residential structure and would only be utilized seasonally.
Trustee Salazar asked what the Park District planned on using the structure for.
Jeff Palmquist of the Fox Valley Park District was on hand to answer questions, he stated it would be utilized for classes, summer camps, etc. He explained it was an opportunity to provide shelter from the elements and bathroom facilities to groups in an effort to make the park more appealing. He also mentioned the area to be used as a trail head for the path.
Trustee Salazar expressed positive feedback for the proposed shelter.
Mayor Gaffino stated that it would be unreasonable for the Village to request the Park District to go under a railroad track and Route 25 to source water and waste lines from the Village.
Director Toth stated that if it was discovered that any further approval was needed by the Board, the item would be brought back at a future meeting.

4. Revisions to Purchasing Policy

Administrator Bosco stated that the purchasing policy is something that is used on a regular basis. It governs spending authority as well as the processes for purchasing. It is updated periodically, the issue regarding requirement of advertisement of a bid search to be conducted via a daily publication, initiated a review of the current purchasing policy.
Director Paprocki spoke to the Village Board about five potential amendments to the Purchasing Policy.
The first amendment would be within the advertising for bids. The current code requires a notice inviting potential bids at least once in a local daily publication. The change would be made that advertisement for bids would be made “publically in keeping with the Illinois Municipal Code in a manner outlined by the Village Purchasing Policy”. The Purchasing Policy would then state that the Village would advertise on Village website as well as secondary outlets such as industry websites, trade journals and IDOT bulletins.
Paprocki also spoke about the spending authority of the Village Administrator, changing it from “less than $15,000” to “less than $25,000” before Board approval is needed. Paprocki stated that no changes had been made to requiring three written quotes for purchases in that category, the change aligns the spending authority with language already contained in the purchasing policy regarding public improvement projects over $25,000. He stated that among comparable municipalities, most have a Village Administrator spending authority up to $25,000, while some have up to $20,000. Paprocki said that the Village averages about six contracts per year that fall within $15,000 to $25,000.
Trustee Lowery asked Director Paprocki how many $5,000 to $15,000 purchases are made annually, Paprocki stated that there are many and that he would have look further in to that, Administrator Bosco added that he had just approved two that day. He stated that there are far fewer purchases in the $15,000 to $25,000 range and that the State of Illinois law is $25,000. Bosco went on to give an example of purchases that are fairly routine made with long standing service providers that have to be brought before the Board under the current spending authority policy.
The third change Director Paprocki addressed was that some procedures such as review of bid packages are attributed to the Administrator, the proposed change would make that the Finance Director.
The next change was the addition of language to the professional services section that allows the Village to continue professional service contracts with vendors it has a longstanding relationship with without an RFP or RFQ process as long as the annual amount does not exceed the Village Administrator’s spending authority. New contracts with new service providers will still be required to follow the appropriate procurement process.
The final change was language added that defined the authorized credit limits of the Village Administrator and Department Heads at $10,000 and $5,000 to supervisory employees.
Trustee Carroll expressed concern over raising the Administrator’s spending authority from $15,000 to $25,000. He stated that he felt more comfortable having those purchases come before the Board.
Trustee Lowery asked if allowing the continuation of professional service contracts with long standing service providers would negate the competitive aspect of the bidding process. Administrator Bosco gave an example of the Village’s contract with their cell phone provider as a service provider that the Village has had a longstanding relationship with and what an arduous task it would be changing 20-30 employee cell phones on an annual basis for a nominal savings.
Trustee Salazar requested confirmation that the change in the Village Administrator’s spending authority, from $15,000 to $25,000, meant that the Administrator would not need Board approval for purchases before the $25,000 limit. Administrator Bosco stated that the Administrator would have authority to make commit to a year-long contract without Board approval if the estimated cost were under $25,000 and unless there are major changes to the contract, it can be renewed without Board approval.
There was further discussion on whether a disreputable person in the role of Village Administrator could take advantage of the change in spending limit policy, and the long term effect such a change could have on the Village as well as what controls are in place to dissuade such a situation.
There was discussion on Service Contracts and multi-year contracts and what authority the Administrator would have in committing the Village to such contracts. Administrator Bosco reminded the Board of the current policy “From time to time, the Village enter into contracts for services for the ongoing maintenance of Village facilities, equipment, software, or for the provisions of services to the community. The procurement of bids or quotes for these contracts should follow normal procurement procedures based on the estimated annual value of the contract. The Village will entertain contracts for multiple years if it is determined that the best interest of the Village would be served by entering into a multi-year agreement. The Village Administrator will determine if a multi-year service contract should require Village Board approval even if the annual cost of the contract is less than the amount normally required for Village Board approval.”
Attorney Drendel stated that the policy is determined by Village Board as directive to the Village Staff within parameters set by the State.
While further discussion on raising the Administrator’s spending authority by $10,000 resulted in Trustees Salazar and Lowery as well as Mayor Gaffino in favor of raising spending authority, Administrator Bosco offered to rework the policy with Director Paprocki to be brought before the Committee of the Whole at a later date.
EXECUTIVE SESSION –Sale of Village Property


Motion to adjourn to Executive Session made by Trustee Salazar and seconded by Trustee Niedzwiedz. All in favor. Motion approved.

In attendance: Mayor Mark Gaffino, Trustee Mark Carroll, Trustee Mike Lowery, Trustee Todd Niedzwiedz, Trustee Carolyn Salazar

Staff in attendance: Village Administrator Steve Bosco, Community & Economic Development Director Mike Toth, Village Attorney Kevin Drendel.

Motion to adjourn made by Trustee Salazar and seconded by Trustee Carroll. All in favor. Motion approved.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jessi Watkins
Village Clerk





← Back
Village of North Aurora

Install Village of North Aurora

Install this application on your home screen for quick and easy access when you’re on the go.

Just tap then “Add to Home Screen”

Accessibility Toolbar