Village of Oswego Committee of the Whole met Nov. 2

By Angelica Saylo Pilo

Jan 11, 2022

Village of Oswego Committee of the Whole met Nov. 2.

Here are the minutes provided by the committee:

CALL TO ORDER

President Troy Parlier called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Board Members Physically Present: President Troy Parlier; Trustees Tom Guist, Kit Kuhrt, James Marter II, Terry Olson, Jennifer Jones Sinnott, and Brian Thomas.

Staff Physically Present: Dan Di Santo, Village Administrator; Christina Burns, Asst. Village Administrator; Tina Touchette, Village Clerk; Jeff Burgner, Police Chief; Mark Horton, Finance Director; Jennifer Hughes, Public Works Director; Rod Zenner, Development Services Director; Scott McMaster, Economic Development Director; Joe Renzetti, IG/GIS Director; and Douglas Dorando, Village Attorney.

PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum was opened at 6:02 p.m.

Gerald Sternberg addressed the Board regarding the water issue in Dixmoor; Village should consider what we are doing; chemicals in water lines that we don’t control; consider a crosswalk at Adams and Rt. 34; no sidewalks on Adams near the Veterans Park; look at modernizing the building codes.

Paula Mikulich addressed the Board regarding the corner of Rt 34 and Kendall Point Drive across from Delta Sonic; she is a resident of Steeplechase; whether there is interest in a cannabis distributor or distillery on this property; Administrator Di Santo noted that no applications have been received for any areas in the Village of Oswego at this time.

There was no one else who requested to speak. The public forum was closed at 6:08 p.m.

OLD BUSINESS

No old business.

NEW BUSINESS

G.1 Calendar Year 2021 Property Tax Levy Discussion

Director Horton presented the annual tax levy for discussion. The levy must be filed with the County by the last Tuesday in December. There are three components of the levy:

1) SSA’s

• Two current SSA’s due to HOA never being established for maintenance of the detention ponds and landscape berm

• $3,500 maintenance cost currently budgeted

• Limiting tax rates on both

• Looking at amending SSA’s

➢ Fox Chase Estates SSA 04 Unit 2

✓ 1% limit rate= $1,162.00

✓ 37% in levy from last year

✓ Will need to hold a public hearing at the December 14th Board meeting

✓ Truth & Taxation required for over 5% tax

➢ Fox Chase Estates SSA 05 Unit 3

➢ 1.5% limit rate= $379.00

2) Abatements

• Bond ordinances filed with the County Clerk to levy taxes

• 2021= $3,664,772

• Adopt abatements ordinances at the December 14th Board meeting to not levy the taxes; this is what the Village has done in the past

3) General Tax Levy

• Required contribution to the Police Pension this year= $1,582,322

➢ Previously agreed to contribution of $1.8 million this year

• Contribution to the IMRF this year= $460,000

• EAV may decrease by April 1st

The first line in the table shaded in green shows what the tax increase would be if the tax rate was kept equal to the final 2020 tax rate. Three other options are shown decreasing the tax rate by .05%, 1% and 2% from the 2020 tax rate of .1511.

Board and staff discussion focused on whether we will need to increase funds in the General Fund; CPI; whether the EAV was what staff expected; real-estate sales set the EAV; over 5% annual increase for the next couple years; it won’t drop 1%; usual tax increase is $5.00-$7.00, now it’s double. Staff to send out new assumptions and present to the Board for decision at the December 14th Board meeting. There was no further discussion.

G.2 Authorization to Proceed with Design and Construction of a Dog Park

Director Hughes addressed the Board regarding a dog park at the southwest corner of 100 Theodore Drive near the Public Works facility. This choice is based upon the site having existing parking and being adjacent to PrairieFest Park. The eastside of the police station was considered but does not have adjacent parking available. Venue 1012 was also considered but the space is limited and needed for concert patrons.

The dog park would consist of four paddocks. There will be two primary paddocks, one for small dogs and one for large dogs with 35 pounds being the divider. This is where the dogs will play off the leash. An optional fourth area could be an obstacle/training paddock that will be available for both small and large dogs. This area is set off from the play areas so that trainers can work with their dogs without being distracted. The entrance paddock is the

primary entrance/exit area for all dogs. This is where the people will remove/attach the dog’s leash. It is best practice in a dog park to have such an area where the dog can be under control away from the dogs who are not leashed.

The paddocks will be constructed of woven-wire fence. Small gates will be provided with additional larger gates to allow mowers access to the paddocks. Fencing will cost $100,000.00. Staff has reached out to several fencing companies, but have not received a response yet.

There are no dog parks within Oswego. The closest dog parks serve the Fox Valley Park and Plainfield Park Districts. The dog park will be constructed to be similar to Daisy Dog Park in Plainfield.

There are no trees around the dog park but will be proposing to plant some. It will take several years to provide adequate shade. An option is to construct a fabric sun sail to provide some shade. Public Works personnel will be on-site for maintenance.

The American Veterinary Medical Association estimates that 38.4% of households own dogs with an average household owning 1.6 dogs. The US Census states that there are 11,215 households in Oswego. This translates to more than 6,800 dogs in the community.

Financing

The project is not in the current Capital Improvement Program but would be constructed using CIP funds budgeted in FY23. The base cost is estimated to be $99,000. An optional sunshade would increase the cost to $119,000. The estimate includes a 20% contingency due to potential supply chain issues, is based upon material costs found on websites with an allowance for installation and includes fencing, gates, picnic tables, trees, and obstacles. The cost does not include providing a water fountain or additional parking.

The project costs could be offset by donations or by charging an entrance fee. No dog parks in the area charge an entrance fee. The Fox Valley Park District recently eliminated the $25 per dog for residents and $50 per dog for non-residents fee which raised approximately $7,000-10,000 per year. The dogs were required to wear the tag with the park district police enforcing the tags. The district eliminated the tag program due to COVID, a desire to promote recreation, the staff time necessary to process the tags, and the reduction in the police force. The district posted a sign stating that use of the park is at the owner’s risk versus collecting information on the dog’s rabies status and veterinarian. For Oswego’s dog park, we would need to issue 790+ permits per year to recover the costs. The budget includes $9,000 to install a lock on the entrance gate that would be activated by a key fob. Customers could pay for each fob separate from the cost to register the dog. The fob system would preclude the purchase of single day tickets. The tag system would allow those purchasing one-day passes online to simply provide a copy of their receipt if questioned.

It is estimated that staff will need to inspect the site three times a week and empty the receptacles as necessary. Locating the park at the Public Works facility will reduce travel time and reduce the maintenance time. The estimated five to ten minutes per visit translates to 13-26 hours per year which would be taken from other services. Staff would purchase and stock bags for feces at an estimated cost of $200/year. The fence will need routine maintenance and the area will continue to be mowed with a potential for a minimal cost increase due to trimming around the fence. In addition to these costs, the registration system will need to be set up and the distribution of fobs or tags will need to be conducted on an annual basis. This work will peak in the spring and slowly decline throughout the year.

Board and staff discussion focused on liking the fencing; fine with the location; Oswego needs a dog park; cheapest and most effective access system is a dog tag; the key fob system would have a key issued to a family; would need to run electric if choosing the fob system; online registration with a receipt issued; staff needs to vet the access system options and bring back to the Board for direction; fob system costs around $9,000; fine with dog park, but not the location; Public Works facility needs to expand; expansion could cause the dog park to be removed and money wasted; staff to look into other dog parks that are charging a fee, those that don’t charge a fee, what the problems are, and the differences; Plainfield is not charging a fee; Rockford does charge a fee; the Police Department would be conducting compliance; higher level of service for those that charge a fee; others are enter at your own risk; can go with the tags and if it doesn’t work, get rid of it; who is responsible for dog bites; would be covered under the Village’s current insurance policy; would have signage with policy and procedures; estimated annual maintenance; already mow the area; would need to purchase dog bags; fence repairs; involve the community and local groups; sponsorships; concerns with tags and manpower; creating more staff time needed; concerns with future Public Works facility expansion; expansion won’t be anytime soon; updating the master plan for the Public Works facility; could put a salt dome elsewhere; spaces available for parking; other properties for the dog park have deficiencies; future discussion on tags and fees; fence replacement in 20 years; labor would be majority of the cost; outsourcing the fencing. Staff directed to move forward with the dog park at the Public Works facility and including the costs in the FY23 budget.

CLOSED SESSION

A motion was made by Trustee Marter II and seconded by Trustee Thomas to enter Closed Session for the purposes of discussing the following:

• Pending and Probable Litigation [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11)]

• Appointment, Employment, Compensation, Discipline, Performance, or Dismissal of Personnel [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(1)]

• Collective Bargaining, Collective Negotiating Matters, Deliberations Concerning Salary Schedules [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(2)]

• Sale, Lease, and/or Acquisition of Property [5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5) & (6)]

Aye: Tom Guist Kit Kuhrt

James Marter II Terry Olson

Jennifer Jones Sinnott Brian Thomas

Nay: None

The motion was declared carried by a roll call vote with six (6) aye votes and zero (0) nay votes.

The Board adjourned to Closed Session at 6:54 p.m.