VILLAGE OF NORTH AURORA
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES
Monday, November 18, 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 Mike Lowery, Trustee Todd Niedzwiedz, Trustee Carolyn Salazar
Staff in attendance: Village Administrator Steve Bosco, Finance Director Jason Paprocki, Village Attorney Kevin Drendel, Village Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director Brandon Tonarelli, Police Chief Joe DeLeo.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS – None
TRUSTEE COMMENTS – None
DISCUSSION
- 2025 Meeting Schedule
Administrator Bosco stated that by state law, the Village had to publish the meeting schedules for the public. The Village Board reviewed the schedules presented to them for the Village Board, Committee of the Whole, Plan Commission, Beautification Committee and North Aurora Days Committee meetings for 2025.
The Board was in agreement to move forward with the schedule.
- Metronet Franchise Settlement Agreement
Administrator Bosco reminded the Board that the Village had three cable providers, Metronet, Comcast, and AT&T. Bosco stated that by state law service providers have the right to lay infrastructure and provide service either through local franchise or through state approval through the Illinois Commerce Commission. In the case of Metronet, they have a local agreement. A local agreement allows for the Village to work with the provider hand in hand, ultimately the cable companies will build out the majority of, if not the whole community. AT&T’s agreement is through the state which allows them to pick neighborhoods where they would like to be as opposed to building out.
Metronet came to the Village about seven years ago, in April of 2017, and they signed a ten year agreement. Bosco stated that it is standard to have these agreements because essentially you are allowing a company to put a ton of infrastructure in the Village’s right-of-ways, taking up space from future improvements. With the agreements, the Village is allowed to charge a franchise fee of 5% of gross sales. In the case of Metronet, their term ran through 2024, rather than discussing a renewal they informed the Village and surrounding municipalities that Metronet were no longer interested in providing cable service. Metronet has said that streaming has taken a piece of the market and cable service was not profitable anymore. Therefore Metronet was seeking to terminate their local franchise agreements with each of the municipalities.
Metronet would continue to provide internet and phone services. All of their services are provided through the same fiber optic cable. Metronet would like to terminate in December, two and a half years early, and were offering a one-time payment of approximately $7,800. Bosco stated that last year the Village received $6,800 in total revenue from Metronet for cable services. That number has been declining as streaming services increase. He also stated that there is not good termination language in the franchise agreements. In summation he said that Metronet was seeking to terminate the agreement and pay a one-time, lump sum payment. Staff has spoken with other administrators and attorneys in the Fox Valley area trying to figure out what a recourse a municipality would have in allowing a company to stay in the right-of-way and utilize that space without paying the franchise fee. Unfortunately, Bosco says, state law preempts the Village on a few things. Metronet already provided some form of telecommunications fee to the Village through the simplified telecommunications tax, the Village does receive a proportional amount of the telecom tax from Metronet services in Illinois. The federal law prohibits the Village from charging right-of-way fee for internet services in an effort to expand on broadband throughout the country. Cable was the one service that the cable act allowed Village’s to focus on. There was an ability to consider a reasonable fee for right-of-way access, but there is not a definition for a reasonable fee.
Village Attorney Kevin Drendel stated that there is a process that is established in the Federal Cable Act for termination of a franchise. A franchisee can terminate for certain changes in market conditions. Drendel stated that the Village does not have to agree to the proposed termination agreement that they have tendered to the Village although Metronet would probably stop providing cable services like they said they would. It would go through an administrative process with the state, and the Village would probably spend money to go through that process and Metronet would probably get to terminate and the Village may not get a fee out of it. Drendel stated that it would probably make sense to accept what Metronet was offering.
Drendel stated that it was less clear how to move forward. The telecommunication services that Metronet plans to continue providing through the infrastructure that they have in Village right-of-ways will generate some simplified telecommunications tax that the state collects and the Village gets a portion of. The internet services that they plan on providing are under federal law and the Village was preempted from collecting any fees on internet.
One idea that staff had suggested, and had been passed on to Metronet, was that Metronet could provide in-kind services as compensation for additional services they render through the existing infrastructure that were not considered telecommunications or internet. There was also some uncertainty of what authority the Village may have in collecting from them because there are not any statutory provisions that relate to it.
Trustee Lowery asked for clarification as to what was meant by “right-of-way”, Administrator Bosco stated that it was the piece of land, also known as the parkway that the Village owns, between the street and the sidewalk.
Trustee Salazar believed that it was better to accept the settlement from Metronet.
Trustee Curtis asked if the Village could request from Metronet what they would have paid for the two and a half years of the early terminated contract. Administrator Bosco stated that Metronet does not have to offer anything, they could just stop providing the service, therefore making no profit.
Attorney Drendel stated that Metronet had an independent right to be in the right-of-way to provide telecommunications and internet.
Administrator Bosco stated that any termination agreement would include language that Metronet would have to adhere to all right-of-way standards going forward, although they are required by ordinance to follow that anyway.
Mayor Gaffino asked if Metronet had let their customers know about the cancellation of services. Bosco stated that he did not know. Attorney Drendel stated that he thought Metronet had a plan in place for that.
Trustee Niedzwiedz asked how Metronet benefitted by offering the settlement. Attorney Drendel stated that if the Village refused to agree, Metronet would have to go through the process with the state, costing them time and money. Niedzwiedz asked why Metronet would not just let the contract run out. Drendel replied that he believed it would have to be financially based decision for them.
- Aurora Area Convention and Visitor Bureau (AACVB) Agreement
Administrator Bosco reminded the Board that the Intergovernmental Agreement with several local municipalities and the Aurora Area Convention and Visitor Bureau dated back to 1987. Typically the agreements had been five year terms, the last one expired two years ago during Covid and the Village had just been honoring those terms.
Bosco listed the municipalities that had been part of the agreement with the AACVB, those included Aurora, Batavia, Big Rock, Elburn, Geneva, Hinckley, Montgomery, North Aurora, Oswego, Plano, Sugar Grove, and Yorkville. He stated that the number of municipalities was important for leveraging.
In the past, every town would have to sign the five year agreement with the AACVB. The AACVB was moving away from that and toward individualized agreements.
The Village pays 90% of their 3% hotel/motel tax to the AACVB. The hotel/motel tax is an occupation tax that the Village can levy based on any overnight stay in the Village. By state law the Village could levy up to 5%. Of the 3%, 90% is paid to the AACVB which was the standard percentage that every other town has paid with the exception of Aurora because of their size. This past fiscal year, that 90% of the 3% came to $95,000. Bosco mentioned that if the Village decided to raise the tax to 5%, the contribution to the AACVB would remain 90% of the first 3%.
Bosco went on to discuss the differences between home rule and non-home rule. Non-home rule communities have restrictions on what the tax money can be used for. Home rule communities could add it to their operations fund and use it toward different things. For non-home rule the money has to be put into promoting tourism and entertainment that leads to overnight stays.
Bosco explained that the benefit of having a large number of municipalities participating was the draw of events, even if a town does not have a hotel, events could lead to overnight stays in a town within the AACVB group. The large number of participants also aids in increased grant funding to the group.
Bosco presented an agreement overview, this included benefits such as the AACVB providing 40% of the Village’s funding contribution back in direct marketing, the Village can have two representatives on the AACVB Board of Directors (one municipal representative and one hotel representative), and an ongoing term that can be terminated with notice.
Trustee Guethle was in favor of continuing on with the AACVB.
Trustee Curtis wanted to revisit the idea of eliminating the hotel/motel tax altogether. She believed that it would make North Aurora hotels more competitive in the area. There was discussion regarding this idea.
Trustee Salazar asked what percentage tax surrounding municipalities charged, Bosco stated that most were at 3%.
Trustee Salazar stated that she was in favor of carrying on, citing that the new casino in Aurora was slated to open in 2025 drawing interest to the area. The Village had the option of terminating the agreement at any time, which was also a benefit.
Mayor Gaffino stated that he believed that North Aurora was competitive regarding hotel stays.
Trustee Curtis reignited the conversation about doing away with the hotel/motel tax and asked to see more metrics on engagement with the AACVB’s website and social media presence.
Cort Carlson, representative from the AACVB stated that while he did not have that information on hand, he would provide it. He also stated that a marketing report is provided to the Village at the end of each year.
Mayor Gaffino stated that he thought the AACVB would be able to appropriate the $90,000 better than the Village could on its own.
The Village Board agreed to move forward with the AACVB.
- Code Updates Pertaining to Vehicle Weights, Abandoned Vehicles, Parking and E-Bikes
Administrator Bosco reminded the Board that there had been recent activity to bring Village code up to date. “No parking” code changes had been discussed multiple times and Bosco mused that each change seemed to raise more questions.
Bosco stated that the first topic up for discussion was in regard to overweight vehicles. He reminded the Board that recently the Village had difficulties with overweight vehicles traveling through residential areas to reach a warehouse. That issue had been addressed but the Village never formally banned overweight vehicles from residential roads, there were only a few streets that did have an overweight vehicle restriction. Staff was proposing that rather than listing prohibited streets for overweight vehicles, they would list only the streets which allow travel by vehicles over 10,000 pounds, therefore shortening the list drastically. Bosco listed the streets that overweight truck traffic was allowed, Airport Road, Deerpath Road, Evergreen Drive, Grant Street (only on the small portion by Aurora Packing Company, Hansen Boulevard, Heart Road, Ice Cream Drive, Mooseheart Road, Mitchell, Oak Street, Orchard Gateway, Orchard Road, Overland Drive, Poplar, Randall Road, Route 25, Route 31, Route 56, Smoketree, and Tanner Road. Bosco pointed out that most of the roads included on the list were state or county roads that already allowed trucks.
The second change was to the “no parking” codes. Bosco reminded the Board that there had been recent changes to the “no parking” codes centered around schools and areas of pickup and drop off times. He stated that what had been missed while updating “no parking” signs around Fearn Elementary was that Hawksley Lane had existing “no parking” on one side of Hawksley. The restrictions listed were between April and August from 8:00 a.m. until 11:00 p.m. When new signage was put up around the school, they stated a “no parking” time beginning at 7:30 a.m., this conflicted with the Hawksley signs, potentially causing confusion. The staff was proposing changes to the “no parking” time on Hawksley signs to reflect the 7:30 a.m. posted on surrounding signs.
The next code change pertained to abandoned/inoperable vehicles. Bosco stated that this had been a very difficult code to enforce. The current definitions, located in different sections of the code, did not match. The newly written definition for an abandoned vehicle would read: Any motor vehicle, semitrailer, trailer, or truck tractor that (a) does not have a current state registration or does not display a current state license plate with valid registration sticker affixed; or (b) a vehicle not removed within ten hours of its involvement in a collision; or (c) a vehicle where the Police Department has attempted and not been able to make contact with the registered owner for a period of at least 48 hours.
The new definition for an inoperable vehicle would read: Any motor vehicle, semitrailer, trailer, or truck tractor that for a period of at least 48 hours has had the tires removed, one or more tires are flat, major vehicle parts have been removed (i.e. windshield, engine, transmission, brakes, body panels), or is otherwise incapable of being moved under its own power or unlawful to operate.
Administrator Bosco said that he believed that the new definitions would help the police and code enforcement officers to enforce the code and dispel any misconceptions that may be held about the code.
Bosco stated that the last update for discussion was new. E-bikes and e-scooters were becoming popular in neighborhoods. He said that the state did have some laws pertaining to the use of the devices, the Village was seeking to follow suit.
Administrator Bosco explained that the e-bikes and e-scooters would be defined in the new section, he stated that a low speed electric bike, with assistance, can reach speeds up to 28 miles per hour. Electric scooters, a device weighing less than 100 pounds, has a top speed of 10 miles per hour or less, and is powered by an electric motor or human power. All e-bikes and e-scooters must comply with all equipment and manufacturing specifications and requirements. E-bikes would be prohibited on Village sidewalks, but e-scooters would be permitted. Class 3 e-bike riders must be at least 16 years old, and all e-bike riders must follow all applicable traffic regulations. E-bikes and e-scooters would be permitted on bike paths unless otherwise posted.
Mayor Gaffino asked about bikes that had gas powered motor enhancements, there was a brief discussion regarding this with Trustee Lowery suggesting the addition of “motorized bikes” to the code.
Mayor Gaffino asked about overweight vehicles traveling on residential streets in order to make deliveries to homes. Administrator Bosco and Chief DeLeo stated in that situation it was appropriate to travel on the residential streets, however the police would be justified in stopping them to verify their delivery destination.
Trustee Lowery raised a question regarding limiting parking on both sides of the street in areas where the street’s curvature makes it dangerous to do so. Chief DeLeo stated that the Police Department had reached out to the Fire District to inquire whether or not they have encountered an area difficult to pass through because there was parking on both sides of the street. The Fire District had not encountered any such area. There was further discussion regarding the topic, Administrator Bosco stated that the topic could be brought back before the Board at a later date.
Trustee Niedzwiedz asked if staff thought that the change to the code for overweight vehicles would result in confusing truckers. There was discussion regarding this with Attorney Drendel adding that without signage on streets, it may be difficult to get any violation tickets to stick. This prompted a discussion regarding posting signage. Drendel stated that posting signage at the entrances of major subdivisions may be a reasonable response. Chief DeLeo stated that overweight vehicles on residential streets was not a common occurrence. There was further discussion regarding the necessity of the signage.
- 2024 Tax Levy
Administrator Bosco reminded the Village Board that the initial 2024 property tax levy discussion about setting the levy occurred at the previous Committee of the Whole meeting. The Board had some questions about why staff had recommended capturing 3.4% and new construction. Staff created a presentation to further inform the Board before making a decision on the tax levy.
Finance Director Paprocki began his presentation explaining that the tax levy was the General Fund’s third largest revenue source behind sales tax and income tax. He laid out upcoming key dates which included November 22nd for the Truth in Taxation newspaper publication, December 2nd the Truth in Taxation and SSA public hearings, as well as the approval of tax levies and SSA levies.
Paprocki went on to speak about Home Rule versus Non-Home Rule as it pertains to the tax levy. As a non-home rule community, the Village was more reliant on property tax. Non-home rule municipalities are tax capped by CPI and new construction whereas a home rule community is not. Home rule communities have more revenue sources and more freedom in setting local taxes.
Paprocki presented a graph of the Village revenues from past levies since 2014 through current, versus what the Village could have raised if it had capture the maximum amount allowed for each year.
The next graphs represented what the property taxes were used for within the Village.
Paprocki explained that historically there had been a $600,000 Capital Fund transfer from the General Fund each year, the previous year the transfer had been $400,000. He discussed some of the projects that were funded by the Capital Fund. Paprocki stated that over the past six years, the Village had pushed $12,680,000 to the Capital Project funds due to surplus revenues. These funds had help fund the Tanner/Remington storm sewer project, Police Department debt payoff, the Public Works facility design and construction management, and the Public Works facility construction. Due to the ability to partially fund the Public Works facility construction the Village was able to save $3.8 million in interest payments.
Paprocki explained that sales tax was the Village’s largest revenue source in the General Fund. Sales Tax revenue for FY 23-24 had decreased, as well as Cannabis Tax revenue.
Paprocki spoke about economic development impacts. He explained that the Village had four active sales tax rebate agreements, North Aurora Towne Center, Gerald Ford, Gerald Genesis, and River Front Ram. He stated that rebates were projected at $449,500 for FY 25-26, about 6% of revenue. Paprocki suggested that there may be future incentives needed to drive economic development. These incentives provide potential for future sales tax, but limits immediate revenue.
Paprocki spent time explaining the tax rate versus the tax levy. He stated that the property tax rate is what gets applied to each property’s assessed value. The property tax levy is the amount requested by each taxing body. The tax rate is broken down by taking the tax levy and the whole district EAV.
Paprocki’s next slides demonstrated what the impact on a tax bill would be, and levy options based on taking 0% with new construction, 1.5% with new construction, 2.5% with new construction, and 3.4% with new construction.
Trustee Niedzwiedz stated he would like the Village to take 0% with new construction.
Trustee Lowery asked how necessary the additional revenue would be, Paprocki stated that he could put together a budget with 0%. He did not see it as a matter of need but if the Village passed on the 3.4% it would be gone. The Village does not have the ability to make up a tax or make up a fee to cover any budgetary shortfalls. Trustee Lowery stated that he would be willing to vote for a 2.5% levy.
Trustee Guethle also stated he would vote for a 2.5% levy.
Trustee Christiansen and Trustee Salazar both said that they would be willing to vote for either 2.5% or 3.4%, Trustee Salazar mentioning the decline in cannabis sales tax revenues as part of the reason.
Trustee Curtis said that she would vote for 2.5% and asked the Board to bear in mind that EAV’s were anticipated to go up.
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
