VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 16, 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 Jason Christiansen, 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 Nathan Darga, Village Attorney Kevin Drendel, Public Works Director Brian Richter, Police Chief Joe DeLeo.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
TRUSTEE COMMENTS – None
DISCUSSION
- Raimondo’s Class A Liquor License
Administrator Bosco explained that should the Board approve a Liquor License for Raimondo’s, it would be a decrease of a Class B license and an increase of a Class A. Raimondo’s currently has a Class B license but upon review, the size of the establishment would garner them a Class A license. Bosco further explained that Raimondo’s was changing ownership, Village Liquor Licenses do not transfer between owners. Due to this, Raimondo’s would need to go before the Village Board for approval of a new Liquor License.
Bosco stated that Raimondo’s was an established business, in the Village for many years. He pointed out the information provided to the Board regarding the business’ specific data for approval. He also stated that the new owners were not currently looking to have video gaming in the establishment.
Administrator Bosco said that the item would return before the Village Board for approval at an upcoming Village Board meeting.
The Village Board were in favor of offering approval for the Liquor License.
- Crave Class C Liquor License
Administrator Bosco explained that the agenda item was regarding the discussion of approving a Class C Liquor License for a new establishment, Crave Hot Dogs and Barbeque to be located at 1049 Orchard Road. Crave was seeking to do a “self-pour” concept that was not currently allowed under the Village’s Liquor Code. Bosco explained that the conversation regarding “self-pour” was to be included under the next agenda item discussion.
Bosco stated that the owners were looking to add video gaming at some point, the square footage of the establishment was going to be approximately 3,200 square feet, Crave would qualify for the maximum of six slot machines.
The Crave concept is a chain, located in 22 states.
Bosco informed the Board that if they were in favor of approving the Liquor License, the item would go back before the Board for final approval during an upcoming Village Board meeting.
The Board expressed approval of the concept and for granting a Liquor License.
- Liquor Code Workshop
Administrator Bosco explained that periodically the staff reviews the municipal code for any updates that need to be made. Staff was presenting to the Board suggested updates to the Liquor Code.
Class H License was currently classified the “golf course” license. Staff was suggesting changing the classification to an “amusement” license which shall permit the retail sale of alcohol for consumption at family entertainment centers, golf courses, miniature golf courses, skating rinks, bowling alley, arcades, movie theaters and billiard halls.
Class Q Banquet Hall License would be a new classification. The Village Board recently approved a new banquet facility within the Village. At the time of approval the owner did not pursue a liquor license, if they ever chose to, this would be the applicable license. This license would allow for the serving and consumption of alcohol on premises if the event is by invitation only, the alcohol is supplied by the host or caterer possessing a valid state catering liquor license, and the host hires either a caterer with a state liquor license or bartenders who have the proper certification to serve alcohol.
Bosco explained that this license was for private and not public events. If the establishment wanted to host a public event, they could apply for a special use license.
Trustee Niedzwiedz asked if this amendment to the code happened, would the new banquet hall need to get this class Q license. Bosco stated that any business could apply for a special use or special event use license for an event that they would like to host.
Mayor Gaffino asked what the fee for a special use or special event use license would be. Bosco stated that he believed that it was $50 or max of $100 for a multiple day event.
Bosco stated that the next classification for discussion was the S-P Supplemental Package License. The current classification allowed for Class A and Class B restaurant licensees the retail sale of wine in the original packaging. The amended version would allow for the sale of wine and beer in the original packages as well as growlers, it would also allow for Class C restaurants the sale of these as well.
The next discussion point was a new classification called S-D Supplemental Dispensing License. This classification would allow Class A, B or C restaurant licensees to use customer operating dispensing devices. The Alcohol could be served from customer operated dispensing devices via a programmable, preauthorized access card or similar method. The servings could be no more than 24 ounces of beer or six ounces of wine per serving. The establishment must provide constant video monitoring and must provide a certified attendant monitoring the customer operated dispensing devices. Bosco stated that the liquor code would include the ability for the Liquor Commissioner to request to view video surveillance footage should there ever be concern.
Bosco went on to explain how “self-pour” establishments operate.
Trustee Salazar asked for confirmation that the onus would be on the restaurant owner to make sure that consumption was regulated.
Laura Franciscy, one of the owners of Crave, was on hand and spoke to the Village Board about how they intend on operating the new restaurant and regulate the “self-pour” aspect of the business.
Bosco then moved on to To-Go Cocktails. This practice was established during the pandemic to allow businesses to continue liquor sales. It allowed for the sale of cocktails, mixed drinks or single servings of wine when placed in a sealed container for off-premises consumption. The state had extended to-go sales until August 1, 2028 and staff was proposing to align the Village with the State’s timeframe.
Happy Hour was the next proposed change. The state had lifted a 26 year ban on happy hour in 2015 and currently allowed for Happy Hour rules pertaining to reduced drink prices for up to four hours in any one day, no more than 15 total hours a week and it cannot occur between 10:00 pm and the licensed premise’s closing hour. The North Aurora Liquor Code currently prohibits reduced price drinks for a period less than one day. Staff was seeking feedback from the Village Board regarding the possibility of allowing reduced price drinks. The Village Board was in favor of allowing this.
The final suggestion was regarding granting the Liquor Commissioner’s ability to revoke a license due to inactivity in such cases where the business establishment does not maintain ordinary business hours to the general public for a time period of 30 days or more, or upon issuance of a license, the business establishment fails to open to the general public within six months.
The Village Board was accepting of the suggested changes to the Liquor Code.
- 2023 Tax Levy Estimate
Administrator Bosco introduced the item as the annual process in which the Village Board looks at the property tax levy options.
Finance Director Paprocki provided a PowerPoint presentation to assist in guiding the Board through the process.
Paprocki began by explaining the intended timeline, the agenda item was the first step, the discussion of calculations for the estimate. November 6th the request for approval of the tax levy estimate would go before the Village Board. November 13th, the Truth in Taxation Publication would be released. December 4th, both the Truth in Taxation and SSA Public Hearings as well as the request for approval of tax levies would take place at the Village Board Meeting.
Paprocki recapped the 2022 property tax levy, stating that the property taxes represented 15.9% of FY2023-2024 budgeted General Fund revenues. 2022 property tax levy extension was $2,690,016 with no CPI increase but capturing new construction adding $28,500 to the tax levy.
Paprocki reminded the Board of the statutes that the Village follows: The Village is subject to Property Tax Extension Limitation Law, per PTELL, capped property tax extension can increase by no more than the applicable CPI factor or 5% (whichever is less), the Village may “capture” any increases in the EAV of the Village due to new construction or other factors as allowed, and the Village cannot defer allowable PTELL increase or “catch-up” in future year.
Paprocki explained that the average CPI for the Village over the last nine levy years has been 2.2%. The Village opted not to take a 5% CPI increase for the 2022 levy. The Village currently had the opportunity to take 5% CPI, while looking forward to the next tax levy it was estimated to be under 5%.
Paprocki spoke about the significant increase of EAV, a 15.5% increase from 2022. He explained why the Village saw the increase and how that will affect the tax rate.
The Village was projected to add $40,125 to $43,131 in new tax revenue, dependent on CPI increase.
Paprocki spoke about the Police Pension. He stated that the Village Police Pension funding policy was to be 100% funded by 2040 with funding recommendation increases annually.
Paprocki presented the Board with a breakdown of what potential property tax levy increases would look like from 0% to 5% along with examples.
Trustee Curtis asked Director Paprocki if the Village taking 0% CPI last year had any adverse effect on the Village. Paprocki explained that it did not due to record sales tax revenue. Trustee Curtis explained her hesitancy to capture any CPI again this year, she would prefer not to increase the burden on property owners. There was further discussion regarding increased police pension contributions and whether or not the Village would be able to maintain and increase contributions without taking CPI. Trustee Salazar commented that she was concerned about what could potentially be a lost opportunity, not taking at least part of the CPI, and stated that the rising pension contribution was the concern driving this thought.
Paprocki reminded the Board of the 2022 SSAs amounts levied.
Paprocki asked for feedback from the Village Board.
Administrator Bosco stated that the reason that the staff was requesting feedback on the tax levy and was not giving a recommendation was because while the Village was doing well financially, expenditures were expected to rise including the Police Pension contributions, the pending Public Works building construction, and the rising costs of capital projects.
Trustee Niedzwiedz agreed with Trustee Curtis and stated that he would like the Village to waive their ability to increase the levy for another year to avoid increasing the tax burden on residents.
Trustee Lowery asked what the impact would be on the construction of the Public Works facility if the Village waived a levy increase. Administrator Bosco stated that currently, at the beginning of the Village’s fiscal year, sales taxes seem to be doing well but he also spoke about rising costs of capital projects. He said that if revenues begin to slow down, the surplus available funds that are transferred to the Capital Fund begin to diminish and capital projects begin to suffer.
Trustee Guethle stated that his concern was lying with how the new Public Works facility could be funded.
Trustee Christiansen expressed that the burden would not be a great one for the property owners and the Village should capture the increase while it can.
Trustee Lowery was conflicted, while he would like to see the Village capture some of the available increase in levy, he did not want to further burden the residents with increased property taxes.
Mayor Gaffino stated that somewhere along the line, the Village needs to figure out how to pay for its’ upcoming expenses. He expressed interest in the idea of raising sales taxes opposed to raising property taxes.
There was no definitive percentage increase decided at the conclusion of the discussion.
- Public Works Facility Funding Presentation
Finance Director Paprocki reviewed information regarding the Public Works Facility construction. He stated that construction and furnishings were projected to be $18 million with projected debt borrowing at $13 – $18 million. Currently the Village had debt for the construction of the Police Station at $645,000 annually through January 1, 2029. The current Capital Funding levels included a .50% non-home rule sales tax which garnered ~$1.4 million annually, Gas/Electric utility tax at ~$600,000 annually as well as other, less substantial revenues that bring in ~$250,000.
Paprocki then spoke about the four options for funding the project.
The first option was to utilize current revenues. Borrow $13 million over 20 years and utilize $5 million of Capital reserve. The $600,000 that was typically transferred to the Capital Fund becomes a debt transfer for the first five years. After that, the $645,000 police station debt as well as the Capital Fund transfer pay for debt the last 15 years.
Option number two was the non-home rule sales tax referendum. This option would see the Village to request by referendum an increase of sales tax by .50%, from 7.5% to 8.0%. Currently, nearby municipalities are 8.0%-8.25%. This would bring in an estimated $1.4 million in annual revenue. This would be coupled with a 15 year debt payment schedule to borrow the full $18 million.
The third option would be to raise utility tax used for debt. This would yield approximately $450,000 annually. The annual General Fund transfer to the Capital Fund would be used for debt, but this option would require an additional funding source to make the debt payment.
The fourth and final option offered was to go to referendum to ask for new debt funded by the annual tax levy. The Average $300,000 home would see $180 added to their tax bill. The Village would borrow $18 million over 20 years.
Trustee Curtis stated that she would like to see option two implemented. She liked the idea of a consumption tax opposed to the homeowners shouldering the burden.
Trustee Guethle agreed with Trustee Curtis, he would prefer option two.
Trustee Salazar would also like to see option two but is concerned about the possibility of the referendum not passing.
Mayor Gaffino stated that he would prefer to see option two implemented as well.
Trustee Niedzwiedz stated that if the Village could save the homeowners any amount of money on the tax bill, it should.
Niedzwiedz stated that he was in favor of the second option as well. He asked what the $1.4 million dollar revenue estimate was based on. Paprocki stated it was based on current revenue.
Niedzwiedz asked if the referendum were to fail, could the Village try again during the following election cycle. Guethle stated it could be on the ballot again.
Administrator Bosco stated that option one could always be the fallback plan because it relies on the Village’s current revenues.
EXECUTIVE SESSION –
- Review of the Executive Session Minutes Dated 05/01/2023 Part 1, 05/01/2023 Part 2, 05/01/2023 Part 3, 05/15/2023, 09/18/2023 Part 1, 09/18/2023 Part 2, 09/18/2023 Part 3
- Review of the Release of Executive Session Minutes
- Imminent Litigation
ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION NOT TO RETURN TO OPEN MEETING
Motion to adjourn to Executive Session made by Trustee Guethle and seconded by Trustee Niedzwiedz. All in favor. Motion approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jessi Watkins
Village Clerk
