VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES
Monday, February 20, 2023
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Village Board meeting was conducted live remotely
via telecommunications.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Gaffino called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
In attendance: Mayor Mark Gaffino, Trustee Mark Carroll, Trustee Laura Curtis, Trustee Mark Guethle, 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, Building Permit Technician Morgan Pinardi, Village Attorney Edward Boula, Public Works Director John Laskowski, Police Chief Joe DeLeo, Deputy Chief Joe Gorski.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
TRUSTEE COMMENTS – None
DISCUSSION
1. Building Permit Fees
Administrator Bosco explained that periodically, municipalities examine their permit fees to assess whether they are still within comparable ranges or if it makes sense to change the rates. He stated that Village staff had been assessing the building permit fees, conducting a comprehensive review, creating a more organized system. Staff feels that this new fee structure will be easier to understand and streamline the process of applying for a building permit.
Community & Economic Development Director Mike Toth presented the updated tiered fee structure to the Village Board. Building Permit Technician Morgan Pinardi was also on hand to address questions from the Board. Toth began by reminding the Board that the building permit fees had not been updated since 2007. With this evaluation, staff was looking to clarify what requires a building permit within the Village Code, making it easier for residents to research their projects. Staff was attempting to apply flat rate fees to the building permits to simplify them and create transparency. Many of the current fees were based on cost or the area of the site of the improvement creating a more cumbersome process for staff in calculating the fees, as well as more complication for residents seeking a permit. Staff analyzed four and a half years (June 2017-December 2021) of data, taking in to account the influx of roofing and sided permits in 2018 and 2019 due to storms causing damage, and created a fee structure based on the costs incurred by the Village including administrative, inspection, internal plan review, plumbing inspection, etcetera.
Toth explained that staff was also seeking balance in the changes. He stated that if a change in fee meant a loss of revenue for the Village, they added revenue elsewhere.
Toth presented a breakdown of the proposed fee structure along with comparisons to the current fees as well as surrounding municipalities’ fees. The proposed structure was broken down in to tiers. For residential building permits, the tier structure was broken down in to six categories; Tier 1-$75, Tier 2-$175, Tier 3-$225, Tier 4-$350, Tier 5-$500, Tier 6-area based permits/new construction.
Trustee Curtis questioned whether inspections were being done, citing personal experience that Village staff had not come to her home to inspect improvements and did not want residents to be charged for inspections if they were not being done. Toth explained that the inspection of certain improvements can be done from the outside without entrance in to the home. Building Permit Technician Pinardi stated that staff had taken in to consideration the time each inspection entails in calculating the proposed fee structure.
Toth spoke about each of the tiers and the home improvements falling under each tier. He talked about the balance that that was sough while creating the tiers. He stated that the residential improvements that fall under the first tier did not require an extensive inspection.
Mayor Gaffino asked if the $75 permit fee would cover the cost of outsourcing someone to do an inspection. Toth stated that Staff believed that it would.
Toth discussed the second tier which is a $175 fee, he stated that most of the home improvements that fall under this category require two to three inspections.
Trustee Curtis asked why adding a deck to a home would incur a $175 fee while a patio would be a $75 fee. Toth explained that a deck required more review than a patio and is more labor intensive. There was further discussion regarding the difference between adding a deck versus a patio and the inspection needed for both.
Toth reviewed the third, $225 tier. He focused on the inclusion of solar panels under that tier stating that Staff did not want to discourage people from embracing solar panels by charging a higher permit fee although they are more labor intensive for the Village.
Trustee Carroll asked if there was a reason the Village should not increase that tier to $250 instead of $225? Toth said it could be considered. Trustee Salazar expressed that she liked the idea of making the permit fee for solar panels lower to make it more appealing to homeowners interested in installing them and said she agreed with the $250 fee.
Toth went through the tier 4, $350. He stated that these items are heavier on the plan review and require five to eleven inspections.
Trustee Salazar asked where the Village would stand compared to surrounding municipalities in terms of fees. Director Toth suggested that fees run the gamut with some higher and some lower. He also stated that some of the surrounding communities may not have taken a look at their fees in quite some time as well and he was hoping to set the tone for the future with the permit fee update.
Trustee Curtis expressed her concern that the fees were exorbitant and the Village is charging residents to make improvements to their properties while providing no assurance that the work will be done properly by whomever the owner contracted to do the work. There was discussion about what the Village spends in order to send inspectors to the site to verify that code is being met which is intended to ensure the safety of the modifications to the home and the surrounding area. Trustees Salazar and Carroll along with Mayor Gaffino agreed that the inspections are done in order to preserve the health and welfare of the projects and surrounding areas and the Village should not lose money by undercharging for permit fees when inspections are being done.
Administrator Bosco stated that he believed that Director Toth and Staff did a good job balancing the fee schedule and fairness to residents. He stated that ultimately, the Village expects a revenue loss in residential permitting fees due to the adjustment.
Trustee Carroll asked if the Village would stand to lose money under the proposed fee structure if something like the weather events of 2018-2019 were to happen again and there was an influx of roofing and siding projects. Toth explained that the Village would lose money if compared to the fee structure of that time but the Village its self would not lose money based on the one inspection roofs and siding require.
There was discussion regarding the overall effect the proposed structure would have, reducing residential permit fees. Director Toth also mentioned the Contractor Registration Fee that had been eliminated in the recent past, saving residents and additional $150.
Toth reviewed tier six for the Board. Toth stated that for the most part the fees in this tier were staying the same, an area based fee structure.
Director Toth moved on to the non-residential fee structure. The non-residential fees would be laid out the same way the residential fees were, in tiers. Tier 1-$250, Tier 2-$500, Tier 3-$1,000, Tier 4- Signs ($5.00/SQ. FT. or Minimum Permit of $50), Tier 5-Cost Based/Area Based.
The first tier of $250 encompassed parking lots, this is one of the more frequently requested permits for small businesses. The review process is not a labor intensive one, therefore the Staff wanted to keep this permit fee low.
Trustee Curtis expressed concern for the smaller businesses and how the non-residential fees would impact them. She stated that the higher fees may prevent the businesses from wanted to make improvements. Director Toth stated that he would be willing to relook at the non-residential fees and create a hybrid approach for businesses.
There was further discussion on the costs related to the first tier of the non-residential permit fees.
Trustee Carroll stated that he was alright with the higher commercial fees, Toth stated that there has not been a lot of pushback from businesses regarding permit fees.
There was discussion that non-residential improvement projects are typically more substantial in size than a residential improvement. This related to the higher fees associated with the non-residential permits, simultaneously minimizing the cost to non-residential owners by not applying an area based fee to most of the tiers.
Trustee Salazar expressed appreciation for the simplification of the proposed fee structure and the ultimate savings to residential owners.
There was discussion regarding residential basement remodeling and residents requesting permits after the fact, upon the sale of the home. Additionally, there was discussion regarding when permits are required, whether something is a structural versus cosmetic change.
Toth spoke about tier 2 of the non-residential fee structure at $500. This tier encompasses multiple improvements for non-residential properties under two acres.
Tier 3 at $1,000 includes roofing, siding as well as some improvements for non-residential properties more than two acres.
Tier 4 involves signage that was at $4 a square foot, is proposed to be $5 a square foot.
Under tier 5 which is cost and area based, staff is seeking to change from $.30 per square foot to $.35 per square foot. In regard to cost based fees, staff was recommending moving from $49 to $50 under 1,000 square feet plus $20 for each additional 1,000 square feet.
The Board was in agreement that the tiered system was an improvement on the fee structure. They wanted to increase residential tier 2 from $225 to $250. After discussion regarding decks being listed under tier 2, the Board wanted to see it moved to tier 1 at $75.
2. Flock Safety Cameras
Administrator Bosco introduced Deputy Chief Joe Gorski to speak about adding Flock Safety Cameras to some Village intersections.
Deputy Chief Gorski stated that the Police Department would like to purchase six Flock cameras to place in strategic, high traffic areas in the Village. Gorski stated that the cameras were needed to assist in identifying and apprehending current criminal elements that visit North Aurora with the intent of engaging in criminal behavior.
Gorski explained that the Village’s unique location, intersecting a major interstate as well as multiple state roads, makes North Aurora an attractive target for criminals seeking an easy in and out of town and hinders the police from apprehending criminals quickly.
Gorski gave recent examples of the types of crimes occurring within the Village as well as the criminal element committing these crimes. He spoke of the challenges facing the police and their investigations of these crimes. He stated that photographic evidence assists police in providing proof of their whereabouts.
Gorski spoke about Flock Safety, founded in 2017 in response to crime occurring in the founder’s neighborhood. The system works by capturing license plates with automated license plate reading cameras. Through short shutter speed, they capture multiple pictures of vehicles that pass through the motion sensors of the cameras. Infrared technology is utilized to capture clear nighttime images. The machine learning technology allows for vehicle information to be captured, such as color, make, type and unusual characteristics of a vehicle.
Flock Safety ensures the information obtained through its cameras is secured at the highest level. There is no personal, identifiable information stored. The camera only catches the rear of the vehicle, no faces of occupants or foot traffic. The footage is deleted from their cloud based storage after 30 days on a rolling basis. The Village Police Department’s own policy prevents officers from disseminating confidential or protected information.
Deputy Chief Gorski stated that the cost to purchase the four installed cameras and two portable cameras was $19,900 with an annual reoccurring fee $18,500. Flock will be issuing an increase of prices in June or July 2023, however if the Village committed the current price would be honored and the first payment would be deferred until the Village’s next budget year, starting June 1, 2023.
Flock Safety currently operate cameras in 2,000 law enforcement agencies. The Village currently maintained a reciprocal agreement with Flock, granting the Village access to their existing network, viewing images from municipalities that choose to share them. Gorski spoke about surrounding municipalities that contract with Flock as well as Aurora who operates their own system.
Dan Murdoch of Flock Safety was on hand to provide information about Flock Safety.
Trustee Carroll asked if Flock Safety worked with home owner associations. Mr. Murdoch stated that they did, that was where they began, contracting with HOAs and businesses which still makes up 55% of their business. These clients have the option of sharing their data with law enforcement.
Trustee Guethle asked where they intended on installing the cameras. Gorski stated that they wanted to place them at I88 and Route 31, and Route 56 near Route 25.
Chief DeLeo stated that the Police Department had been entertaining the idea of installing cameras for multiple years. He stated that a specific incident where Flock Safety camera footage shared with the Police Department helped to solve a crime, was a driving factor in the Department pursuing this.
Trustee Curtis expressed a concern about privacy issues with the installation of cameras. She also expressed concerns that the installation of cameras would affect property values in the area and give a neighborhood the appearance of being a high crime area.
DeLeo stated that he had shared Trustee Curtis’ concerns and that is likely why the Department was indecisive for multiple years about installing cameras. However, he stated that the cameras are not new technology and are very integrated in to our lives. The Flock cameras were not tracking people, they were photographing cars. He also stated that the cameras will not be installed in neighborhoods but major intersections and arterial routes that criminals are using for access in and out of the Village.
Gorski described the security around the access of the data and provided examples of the assistance that the Flock Security System has already provided the Village Police Department.
There was further discussion about privacy issues and how they play in to the installation of the cameras as well as how cameras may or may not stigmatize a neighborhood.
Mr. Murdoch explained further how Flock Safety worked, that the Village would own the data and not the cameras. The reiterated that the data was wiped from their cloud like storage after 30 days. He continued his presentation on Flock Security and how the system worked.
Trustee Guethle was in favor of contracting with Flock.
Trustee Niedzwiedz asked about the two portable cameras versus the four fixed cameras. Murdoch explained that the four fixed cameras were to be attached to poles and hard wired in or will have a solar panel. The portable cameras can be charged to capture 30,000 images and can temporarily be installed in places law enforcement deem necessary. DeLeo provided examples of where portable cameras may be used.
Trustee Niedzwiedz was in favor of contracting with Flock.
Trustee Carroll asked if it helped with crime prevention to have the cameras portable. Murdoch expressed that the cameras were not very noticeable and a criminals would need to be very organized if they were trying to avoid cameras.
Trustee Carroll asked if the cameras would integrate with Aurora’s cameras. Gorski explained that they would not as Aurora maintains their own systems and have different types of cameras.
Trustee Carroll was in favor of the contract.
Trustee Curtis was not in favor of installing the cameras, she also stated that if they cameras were to be installed she would like to see residents and businesses around the installed cameras notified of the cameras.
Trustees Lowery and Salazar along with Mayor Gaffino were in favor of installing the cameras and expressed that they believed it would improve safety.
Mayor Gaffino added that he trusts the judgement of the Village’s Police Department and Administrator Bosco and supports the decision. He also stated that he did not believe that notice needed to be sent to residents and businesses near the newly installed cameras.
There was additional discussion about whether or not notice or signage was needed and/or beneficial.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – None
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn made by Trustee Guethle and seconded by Trustee Niedzwiedz. All in favor. Motion approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jessi Watkins
Village Clerk
