VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES
Monday, October 21, 2024
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 Todd Niedzwiedz, Trustee Carolyn Salazar
Staff in attendance: Village Administrator Steve Bosco, Finance Director Jason Paprocki, Community Development Director Nathan Darga, Village Attorney Ed Boula, Public Works Director Brian Richter, Police Chief Joe DeLeo.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
TRUSTEE COMMENTS – None
DISCUSSION
- 302 Mitchell Road
Administrator Bosco explained that the agenda item was in regard to 302 Mitchell Road. He stated that the Board looked at the site plan a while back, one of the concerns was regarding a fence as well as issues about access to the facility. Director Darga had been working with the developer to come up with a plan. The Board had asked about fencing options and the related costs in the event the Village would be interested in a cost share.
Director Darga reminded the Board that the proposed Prologis warehouse to be located at 302 Mitchell, would sit next to an existing Prologis warehouse at 300 Mitchell. The new development had been discussed and approved by the Plan Commission on February 6, 2024 and presented to the Board at the Committee of the Whole meeting on February 19, 2024. At that time there was a lot of discussion regarding the southern access point and truck staging at the north end. The item was back before the Committee of the Whole in August, at that time the developer was able to update everyone that the new tenant for the existing building, Bimbo Bakery, would be investing in a lot of improvements. They were able to make the southern entrance a full access, and they were able to do the truck staging on the south side of the building. These were two big concerns. The final piece in question was regarding fencing or screening along the northern property line. At that time Prologis asked if the Village would be able to participate in cost sharing for fencing, to extend the fence across the existing warehouse, given that that building was not up for approval but included in the discussion. The Board asked for an idea of what pricing might look like. The developer provided pricing for fencing along the north of the building at 300 Mitchell Rd. The cost for an 8’ Trex Fence would be $141,544, 10’ $180,886, and additional landscaping of evergreen and maple trees would be $35,000. Prologis was seeking a cost sharing agreement for the installation of a fence or additional landscaping. The staff recommended, should the Board want to cost share, it be done in the form of a permit fee discount for the new building. Darga stated that it could be done as a percentage of the permit fee or a flat dollar amount. The building permit fee would be approximately $150,000.
Trustee Curtis asked if the new building would have a fence included in the project. Darga stated that the building up for approval at 302 Mitchell Rd did have a fence included in the project plans.
Trustee Curtis expressed a concern that the situation forces the hand of the Village to participate in constructing a fence for uniformity sake. She suggested that having the Village pay for part of the fence could set a negative precedent for any homes within the Village that back to an industrial property. She stated that residents should inform themselves of the zoning around the home prior to purchasing a property as properties are priced to reflect adverse conditions.
Director Darga stated that if the Village Board chose to provide for additional landscaping instead of fencing, the new building would be revisited and be made install additional landscaping opposed to the proposed fencing.
Trustee Niedzwiedz asked if the height of the fence along 302 Mitchell had been decided yet, Darga stated that the Board’s decision would dictate the height.
Trustee Guethle stated that while the Village Board followed the code during the approval of the building at 300 Mitchell, he felt that the Village should participate in cost sharing for an 8’ fence to run the length of both buildings.
Trustee Curtis expressed her disagreement asking why the Village feels they have to do anything in the situation since the Board followed the code while initially approving the building at 300 Mitchell Rd.
There was discussion regarding whose responsibility it was for any changes and why the Village may want to participate in the addition of landscaping or fencing installation.
There was discussion about what amount of financial participation was expected from the Village, Darga stated that staff was thinking 50% of the cost.
The Board discussed what size of fencing might be appropriate while reviewing site plans and elevation renderings.
There was further discussion about what the Village’s role should be in construction of a new fence and what responsibility the Village had to provide screening for residents backing to the site.
Trustee’s Niedzwiedz and Christiansen stated that they were in favor of a 10’ fence with the Village sharing 50% of the cost.
Trustee Salazar stated that she saw both sides of the argument but felt that this could be a lesson learned for the Village. She felt that reducing the permitting fee by half to contribute to a fence and landscaping was appropriate.
The Board decided to move forward with a 10’ fence, contributing to the cost by reducing the permitting fees by 50%.
Darga stated that he would include it as a section in the PUD ordinance.
- 2024 Tax Levy Estimate
Administrator Bosco stated that this agenda item was the opening discussion on the preliminary tax levy. Finance Director Paprocki would guide the Village Board through the presentation. Bosco reminded the Board that this would be the opening conversation in what happens, between the current meeting and the first meeting in December when the tax levy is finalized. There were numbers included in the presentation that could be refined by the December meeting.
Finance Director Paprocki stated that during the current meeting, he would go through the preliminary estimates, at the next meeting the tax levy estimates would go before the Board for approval for the purpose of issuing the notice for the newspaper and holding public hearings. On December 2nd the levy would go before the Board for approval to send to the County for final approval.
Paprocki provided a quick overview of property taxes. He stated that they make up about 16.7% of the Village’s General Fund budgeted revenues. It is the third largest revenue behind sales and income tax. The 2023 property tax levy brought in $2,891,206.00 to the General Fund. Much of that, 65.2%, goes to the Police Pension funding. The levy discussed currently would fund the 2025-2026 budget.
Paprocki discussed the Property Tax Levy Statute, he stated that the Village was subject to the Property Tax Extension Limitation Law, which meant that the Village could only increase the levy by whatever CPI has been determined or 5%, whichever is lower. Taxing districts could also receive an additional allowance for new property to add to the levy, therefore it is CPI or 5%, plus new property. Paprocki stated that with PTELL the Village could not catch up, whatever the CPI is, if the Village chooses not to take it, it cannot be taken in a subsequent year.
Paprocki gave an overview of CPI. He stated that over the past 10 years, the CPI has averaged 2.8%, with the years of 2022 and 2023 raising the average with 7.0% and 6.5% CPIs. The Village chose not to take an increase in 2018 as well as 2022, in 2023 the Village had the option of taking 5% due to the 6.5% CPI, but elected to go with 2.5%. The current CPI for 2024 was 3.4%, the numbers included in the presentation were based on capturing 3.4%.
Paprocki explained that a big part of the levy was the EAV, the total EAV was projected at $811 million, the Kane County preliminary estimates. The numbers would likely come down a bit, the final numbers expected in the spring. The residential portion of the EAV was projected to be $616 million and new construction $13.2 million. The new construction was expected to add $47,000 in new revenue to the tax levy this year. The Village has historically increased its levy for the new construction, even in years where the Village did not take any CPI increases.
Paprocki explained that the main park of the levy was the Police Pension Valuation. The numbers used were based on the Village’s most recent valuation, which was June 1, 2024. The Village’s policy was to fund the pensions at 100% by 2040, which is more ambitious than the state law to have the pension 90% funded by 2040. The Fully funded recommendation was $1,955,000 which was up from last year’s $1,825,000. Paprocki explained that some of the reasons it has risen was due to the investment return coming a little under the assumed 6.5% at 5.97%. There were also more retirements than expected. The pension was currently funded at 61.9%. The Village holds a $17.5 million net pension liability as of the Village’s last fiscal year.
Paprocki stated that adding a 3.4% CPI increase would add $95,200 to the levy, and the estimated new construction would add $47,981 resulting in a $2,944,000 levy. Paprocki also stated that the EAV was currently estimated to significantly increase, decreasing the Village’s tax rate 9%.
Trustee Curtis and Director Paprocki discussed Trustee Curtis’ concern that the EAV would actually increase more than anticipated.
Director Paprocki spoke about the SSA for Waterford Oaks, Oak Hill, Timber Oaks, Pinecreek II, Willow Lakes, and the North Aurora Towne Center. He stated that the Village was looking at increases to the SSAs due to maintenance contract cost increases. Some of the SSAs had not changed in years despite price increases. The Oak Hill SSA would see a more significant increase due to pond restoration costs.
Administrator Bosco explained that once the estimates for the pond restoration for the Oak Hill subdivision came back, it would be presented to the Board and would be followed up with a meeting inviting residents of Oak Hill to discuss any questions that they might have.
Paprocki wrapped up his presentation stating that past practice of the Village had been to levy for CPI and new construction, excluding the years 2018, 2022, 2023. He said that some of the budget considerations were the police pension that had been going up significantly each year, the normal salary and benefit increases, the rising costs for goods and services, and the state grocery tax elimination on 1/1/2026. Staff recommended the 3.45 CPI with new construction, a $2,944,500 tax levy request. This would be brought back to the next Village Board Meeting for approval, which would then be sent to newspapers and a public hearing, the final approval happening in December.
Trustee Curtis asked about the sales tax increase and how it fits in to this. Director Paprocki explained that the sales tax goes to the Village’s Capital Projects Fund to pay for debt payments on capital projects.
Trustee Curtis asked if taking the 2.5% last year, no levy or partial levy previous years have had negative impact on the Village. Paprocki stated that staff was attempting to be proactive with their suggestion, bearing in mind future budget items and issues. Curtis stated that she would prefer to take a year-by-year approach to the tax levy in an effort to curb excessive financial burden to property owners. Paprocki stated that staff can bring back different amounts at the next meeting. He said that he does not currently see any negative effects but staff was looking toward the future and did not want to miss an opportunity to capture the CPI.
Trustee Niedzwiedz stated that he would like to see the Village capture the minimum necessary along with new construction. He said ideally that number would be zero but understands that that likely would not be the case.
Trustee Salazar stated that knowing that the grocery tax will go away, it would be short sighted to not take anything. She stated that she may be willing to agree to capture the 3.4%, but something would need to be taken.
Trustee Christiansen said that the Village had fifteen years to get the Police Pension fully funded and the Village needed to start somewhere, adding a little extra to the pension each year would not be impactful.
Administrator Bosco explained the Village’s financial position and why staff made their suggestion.
After a discussion, Administrator Bosco advised that the staff could come back to the next meeting with a breakdown of different options for the Village Board, in an effort for them to make a more informed decision that they could be comfortable with. The Village Board agreed.
- Veterans Memorial Concept
Administrator Bosco reminded the Board that the Veterans Memorial began sometime between 2005 and 2009 when donations were taken to build a memorial, and was constructed sometime between 2010 and 2012. Within the Strategic Plan there are a couple of items related to the Veterans Memorial. The first was to review enhancing the memorial, and the second was bringing awareness to the Memorial. The Village holds a service there each Veterans Day, which is the only time people congregate there. The thought of staff was to enhance the Memorial and bring more attention to it by holding more events there through the year, possibly in conjunction with organizations like the library and schools.
The Village hired Teska and Associates, with whom the Village had worked with numerous times, along with a group of residents and employees, some who are veterans, to drive the conversation regarding enhancements. Originally, the idea was to expand on the Memorial, however when the group went to view the site, it was decided that the existing Memorial should be enhanced. A lot of the existing Memorial had been done through fundraising, including the sale of memorial bricks. Many of the inscribed bricks that were installed now have wear and damage. The wall that encircles the Memorial as well as the plaques that are installed on it could use updating and beautification as well. After that visit and discussion, Teska’s Jodi Mariano redesigned the concept from the perspective of growth of the Memorial to one of enhancement of what was currently there.
Jodi Mariano of Teska and Associates was on hand to present the collaborative plans for the Memorial. She explained that the purpose of the effort was to define a high level concept for the area, this would include high level budget costs.
Ms. Mariano began her presentation outlining the area of focus, stating that it could serve as an area of greater connectivity from Oak Street to John Street and the neighborhood at large. Mariano stated that the areas that the Committee really focused in on were the areas along Willow Way, the Veterans Memorial Plaza at Farview Drive, which was singled out as the priority project, Artillery Plaza at State Street, and the sidewalk and crossing areas.
Ms. Mariano spoke about the existing Memorial at Memorial Plaza, the features that are in good condition as well as what could be upgraded and/or replaced.
She then spoke about the Artillery Plaza and Sidewalk expansion, again speaking about the features that would be replaced and those that would stay.
Mariano then spoke, in greater detail, about all three aspects of the Veterans Memorial, including the Memorial Plaza, Artillery Plaza, and the sidewalk expansion and the proposed plans for them.
Mariano spoke about the existing memorial pieces that had been donated, specifically the inscribed bricks. She stated that the Village would catalog the bricks and incorporate the names of the memorialized in the enhanced version of the Memorial in some way.
Mariano presented a budget analysis for each of the three areas of focus. She spoke about the estimated costs and how they were established with the assumption that the Village would hire a general contractor to oversee the project. She gave suggestions on where the Village could save by doing the work itself, rather than having outside vendors or creating sub-phases to break down the cost of the project in smaller increments.
Administrator Bosco circled back to the memorial bricks that already exist within the memorial. He stressed how important they were and that the Village planned on returning the bricks to the families and incorporating the names of the memorialized within the updated Veterans Memorial.
Bosco spoke about the Committee’s desire to attract more children to the area and the possibility of installing more interactive displays to add interesting educational elements for children.
Bosco spoke about the effort that the Village will make to reach out to other groups to bring more people to the area, as well as the outreach to residents to draw more attention to the Memorial.
Bosco spoke about next steps and cost saving measure the Village could take for the project. He also mentioned that when there is a concept plan, applying for grants becomes easier.
Trustee Guethle stated that he liked the concept.
Trustees Niedzwiedz and Christiansen liked the concept and would like to move toward the next step.
Trustee Curtis expressed concern about the costs associated with the project but liked the idea of working with other civic groups and schools to bring more people, specifically children, to the Memorial.
Mayor Gaffino stated that was a discussion within the committee, about plans to reach out to the library and schools to bring more children and educational events to the Memorial. However, he stated, the first step would be to get the ball rolling on improvements to the site.
Trustee Salazar would like to move forward to the next step and agreed that she would like to see more attention brought to the Memorial.
Administrator Bosco stated that he would meet with Ms. Mariano and get a scope for phase two of the project.
EXECUTIVE SESSION – None
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn made by Trustee Guethle and seconded by Trustee Salazar. All in favor. Motion approved.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jessi Watkins
Village Clerk
